Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts

Saturday, March 8, 2014

A Cruel Double Standard

I might need to add #20 to the series NOT a Good Reason to Deny (Consanguineous) Love and #22 to the Discredited Arguments page, because I've heard and read people say that people in consanguinamorous relationships (or step or adoptive relationships that have gone romantic) don't need the freedom to marry because they're already family. In addition to being as senseless as telling a woman she can't marry her sister's husband's brother (which is legal and does happen) because they are already family, the statement can bring up a very cruel double standard.

In many situations involving Genetic Sexual Attraction, the lovers are not legally family for the purposes of insurance, benefits, taxes, hospital visitation, next of kin, etc. because they were adopted into or born into (via sperm, egg, or embryo donation) different families. Also, in many places, when a married woman gives birth, the child is legally her spouse's child as well. What if, due to sex with someone other than her spouse, the woman's child is genetically a half-sibling to another married couple's child, and as adults they decide they'd like to marry?

The double standard is that, while these genetically related people don't enjoy the benefits of being family, in places that still have ridiculous laws discriminating against consensual adult incest, they are considered family and thus can (and are) criminally prosecuted for consensual sex or at least denied their right to marry.

You're not family so you can't get the benefit of being family. You are family so you are going to be prosecuted for having loved each other in sexual way. That's cruel.

As an example, if something were to happen to Melissa and she ended up in a hospital, her adoptive parents could bar Matthew and Linda from even being by her side, let alone making decisions about her care, even though Matthew and Linda are, for practical purposes, her spouses. She would be married to them if she could, but the law isn't there yet.

Those who are sharing, or want to share their lives as spouses or partners often do need the same rights, benefits, and protections as any other spouses, and there’s no good reason to deny them their fundamental right to marry. Also, marriage automatically provides for next-of-kin status, which is especially important when there is some discord between at least one of the lovers and legal family members outside of the consanguinamorous relationship.

There are many cruel double standards when trying to tell other consenting adults how to love each other. GSA or not, consanguinamorous people need discriminatory laws to be done away with, and need access to the protections provided by marriage, if they want them. This is yet another reason we need full marriage equality sooner rather than later.

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

Possible GSA Case Makes News


Not everyone who is arrested or prosecuted for consensual sex is a sympathetic person overall. Sometimes, they've done other things that should continue to be crimes. Regardless of whether someone is a career criminal or a true pillar of the community, consensual relationships and sex between adults should not be a crime, and should not be fodder for ridicule in what are supposed to be serious news services. Stories like the one below are not justification to deny full marriage equality. For every situation like the one detailed below, there are many great people who are in consanguinamorous relationships and you never heard about them. Or, they are famous and admired, but their consanguinamory remains closeted.

Here is Lee Moran's article at nydailynews.com...

A Texas meth-head and his sister confessed to incest after they were caught passionately kissing in prison, police said.

Charlene Ellet, 25, and her brother Cameron Beck, 26, were allegedly busted locking lips between jail cell bars after getting arrested for possession of meth.

The Houston duo now faces prohibited sexual conduct charges on top of the initial drug allegations.
So this happened in Texas but is in a New York newspaper. Why?

Montgomery County Police Reporter said that the pair was picked up at a Wal-Mart on Friday after Ellet was caught stealing.

Deputies detained Beck, who'd driven his sister and her 2-year-old twin girls to the store, after finding traces of meth in his car.

Taken to Montgomery County Jail and placed in neighboring cells, deputies said they were stunned when the pair started kissing each other on the lips through the bars.

They should have learned from this. Texas is one of the worst states when it comes to consanguinamory. Here's why I think this is a possible case of Genetic Sexual Attraction...

Confirming they were siblings, Ellet said they had the same biological mom but that she had been adopted.

She revealed they struck up a pen pal relationship as Beck was in prison and hooked up on his release in November.

The couple lived in a motel room with Ellet's two daughters, and would often have sex behind a partition as the two girls watched TV.

Here's the coverage at examiner.com.

Here's the coverage at opposingviews.com.


Here's what appears to be the original source, montgomerycountypolicereporter.com.


And dailymail.co.uk had to carry it, too.

Tuesday, March 4, 2014

Newspaper Editorial Calls For Hate

A newspaper in Zambia is calling for more hate in response to recent shocking discoveries that people are loving each other even though they are siblings. Here is the editorial at daily-mail.co.zm...

THE continued reports of incestuous marriages in Central Province are worrying and raise many social and psychological questions.
What is there to worry about?

We urge relevant Government organs and non-governmental organisations to carry out a research to establish if this could be widespread and unravel the factors that could be driving people in this particular province into such marriages.

Yes, it is common. What is driving them to it is usually the same thing that drives any lovers.

This kind of behaviour should not be allowed to take root because it could have devastating social and biological consequences.

Such as...? Such as...? They got nuthin'.
Human beings are not animals that are ruled by instinct. We are ruled by reason.
Some of us are ruled by reason. Others want to interfere in the marriages of strangers.

Surely, how could a brother and sister have the courage to engage in a sexual relationship and even have children between them?
I can show you video.
This does not happen even in the most liberal and morally depraved western societies.
This happens everywhere and always has.
Incest is a criminal offence in Zambia.
Not for any good reason

It is disturbing to imagine the stigma the innocent children that could be born out of such a perverted marriage would have to endure.

Uh, then stop stigmatizing them.

What a pile of crap that editorial is. I hope the person who wrote it doesn't actually get paid for that drivel.

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.

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.

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.

Saturday, February 8, 2014

How Nonmonogamous People Can Avoid Trouble


Believe it or not, there are still criminal laws in many places criminalizing consensual sex and relationships between adults.

It doesn't matter to them how loving, happy, and lasting the relationships are. It apparently doesn't matter to the people interfering that every dollar or minute they spend trying to stop consenting adults from loving each other is a dollar or minute that could instead go into protecting people, especially children, against predators.

In addition to the persecution and prosecution of consanguinamorous people, polyamorists, polygamists, and other ethical nonmonogamists can face discrimination and even prosecution.
Some awesome people put together a very helpful lists of state laws for polyamorous people in the US or considering moving to the US. First, note the disclaimer that there is an ever-present at the bottom of this blog. I'll mostly repeat it here:

The focus of this blog is consenting adults. This blog does not advocate anyone engage in activity that is currently illegal in their jurisdiction; it does advocate changing or repealing any law that prevents the freedom of association, love, and full marriage equality for adults. This blog condemns rape, sexual assault, and child molestation, and does not provide medical, therapeutic, legal, financial, or cooking advice. This blog links to other sites for informational purposes; it does not necessarily support everything at those links.
OK, with that out of the way, I'll continue as a friend.


Please keep in mind that while a state may not have a law against "fornication" (sex outside of a legal marriage), "adultery" (when a married person has sex with someone other than her or his legal spouse), or cohabitation, it might still criminalize consensual sex between close relatives (whether genetically related, steprelation, or adoptive). For more information about that, see here. Also, laws on the books may be rarely or selectively enforced, so it it s good to consult an attorney familiar with the laws of a state as well as actual criminal and civil cases in that state and general legal climate.

While most nonmonogamists never get prosecuted or sued, the threat is always there in many places.

With states that allow a legally married spouse to get an advantage in a divorce by citing adultery or sue their spouse's lover for financial compensation, the only way to be sure of avoiding a problem is to simply avoid the risk entirely by not getting involved with someone who is legally married, or, if you are legally married, not getting involved with anyone other than your spouse. Even if everyone is enthusiastic at first or at the time of the sex or relationship, someone can still use the law to get what they see as revenge should things tum cold.

State By State


All 50 US states have statutes against bigamy/polygamy (multiple licensed marriages). In most states, bigamy is a felony.

In the following states, bigamy is a misdemeanor. However, once the penalty is paid, you are back at square one.

Alaska
Arkansas
Hawaii (petty misdemeanor-- 30 days in jail)
Iowa
Maine
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Jersey
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island (misdemeanor, $1000)
Tennessee
Texas

The following lists are ordered by which states have the most promise statutorily. The first list is the best, the last list is the worst.

The following states, have no statutes against  fornication, adultery, or cohabitation, and they also do not recognize common-law marriages (which assigns marital status to people who might not want to be considered married).

California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington

The following states have statutes that concern adultery, but none for fornication, cohabitation, or common-law marriage. In some of them adultery is grounds for divorce only. In others the offending spouse simply forfeits any rights to the innocent spouse's estate. In the rest of them, adultery is a crime that can only be prosecuted by the offended spouse. In a successful polygamous relationship, these need not be obstructive. If the relationship fails, however, the statutory adulterer will be charged.

Connecticut
Delaware
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland (Adultery results in a $10 fine and is grounds for divorce)
Missouri
New Jersey
Ohio
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas (Texas does recognize common-law marriages, but apparently only if they are registered with the county clerk)
Vermont

Both states make adultery and fornication misdemeanors, although in Illinois the conduct must be "open and notorious." For interest's sake, we have listed all of the states whose statutes are no worse than Georgia or Illinois. This only means that in these states you are as likely as not, to be able to find a lawyer who will talk to you.

Arizona
Georgia
Illinois
Michigan
Minnesota
New Hampshire (New Hampshire recognizes common-law marriages, but only for inheritance purposes after death)
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota

The following states have laws against cohabitation.

Alabama
Alaska
Arkansas
Florida
Massachusetts
Mississippi
Nebraska
North Carolina
South Carolina
Virginia
West Virginia
Wyoming

The following states recognize common-law marriages, or else make adultery a felony, and are not on the previous lists.

Colorado
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Montana
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Utah
Washington D.C.
Wisconsin

How do people minimize the risk of losing in court? What can nonmonogamists do to protect themselves? Any of these steps might help...

1) Consult a lawyer. I am not a lawyer. A criminal defense or family law attorney might be someone well worth consulting.

2) Move to more enlightened states or countries.

3) Be careful who you tell and what you tell them. In the US, we have a Constitutional right against self-incrimination (see 5th Amendment) and the right to remain silent when arrested by law enforcement. It's a good idea when dealing with police to give them polite, brief "yes" or "no" or "I don't know" or "I don't remember" answers unless even one of those could incriminate you. In the US, you also have the right to an attorney and it is a good idea speak up and ask for a lawyer if you're held or taken in by police. Also in the US, unless there is imminent danger to someone, you don't have the let police into your home without a search warrant, and even search warrants can have limits. YOU may think something is obvious and gives you away, the police may even have figured it out, but staying silent about it can still protect you.

4) Be careful what you document. Many lovers enjoy taking video or pictures of themselves having fun with each other, but for the nonmonogamous, such media, if it falls into the wrong hands, can be trouble.

5) Have a cover story. Anticipate questions, whether from those you know you or those who don't who might not approve. Historically, it isn't unusual for a home to have three or more adults.

6) Know your risk in raising children. Not only will children have to deal with the prejudice of others, but children may also provide testimony that goes against you, often unwittingly.

7) Stick to private places and lock the door when you get to the fun.


Note that most ethicists say it is OK to lie to authorities who are trying to enforce unjust laws or policies. An extreme example is a Nazi SS officer asking you, "Are you hiding any Jews here?" It was ethical to say "No." Well, I think that applies here, too, though the situation is not as extreme. It is nobody else's business if adults are having consensual sex or relationships.

This advice shouldn't even be necessary, but until we get to the point where we have relationship rights for all adults, including full marriage equality, nonmonogamists should think about protecting themselves. Of course, some level of trouble is necessary to make change. Laws need to be overturned in courts or changed by legislatures, but it is up to each set of lovers to decide for themselves if they want to come out of the closet and to push for those things. The more other people realize that ethical nonomonogamy is a reality all around them, the sooner the persecution will be greatly reduced.

Police officers usually have some wiggle-room when it comes to investigating or arresting people can can look the other way if they choose. Prosecutors can choose not to prosecute. Judges can dismiss cases. Juries can refuse to convict (research jury nullification). So I beg these people to let consenting adults love each other without harassment, without prosecution.

Do you have any suggestions? Any tales to tell about what you've done to protect yourself? What do you think, dear reader? Leave a comment or email me.

Thursday, February 6, 2014

How Consanguineous Lovers Can Avoid Trouble


Believe it or not, there are still criminal laws in many places criminalizing consensual sex between adults, and there are still police officers who will investigate people for this "crime," still prosecutors who will take the case before a court, and still judges and jurors who will convict people and sentence them to prison.

It doesn't matter to them how loving the relationships are. It doesn't matter if they love each other more than they could love others, it doesn't matter if the lovers didn't even meet each other until they were adults. It apparently doesn't matter to the people interfering that every dollar or minute they spend trying to stop consenting adults from loving each other is a dollar or minute that could instead go into protecting people, especially children, against predators.

In addition to this persecution of consanguinamorous people, there aren't any protections against other forms of discrimination against the consanguinamorous, such as employment discrimination. There are still many states that don't have protections for LGBT people, either, and polyamorous people are even less protected than monogamous LGBT people.

I sometimes forget that people don’t follow the news and law as closely as I do for this blog, so they may be unaware of these things. So I want to share with you what I've learned.

First, note the disclaimer that there is an ever-present at the bottom of this blog. I'll mostly repeat it here:


The focus of this blog is consenting adults. This blog does not advocate anyone engage in activity that is currently illegal in their jurisdiction; it does advocate changing or repealing any law that prevents the freedom of association, love, and full marriage equality for adults. This blog condemns rape, sexual assault, and child molestation, and does not provide medical, therapeutic, legal, financial, or cooking advice. This blog links to other sites for informational purposes; it does not necessarily support everything at those links.
OK, with that out of the way, I'll continue as a friend.

The vast majority of people who have consensual sex with a close relative never get "caught." 10-15% of people in their early 20s will confide in surveys to having had consensual sexual contact with a sibling. The percentages rise in older age groups. That's just the people who will confide in the surveys, and doesn't include being with aunts, uncles, parents, etc.. The percentages increase in older age groups because there are more opportunities over the years. Many of those situations involve a moment or a fling or something that just lasts for season, but in other cases they are long-term romances and lifelong spousal relationships.

While most never get prosecuted, the threat is always there in so many places, and I regularly find news reports of such prosecutions. When people do get caught and publicly persecuted and, often, prosecuted, in almost every case, the lovers were outed and handed over to ax-grinding prosecutors due to one or more of a few factors (presented in no particular order):

1) Self-incrimination.
2) Being ratted out by a claimed witness.
3) Testing and reporting of a child's DNA.
4) Being caught in the act by law enforcement.

In other words, it isn’t like the police come door to door, scan crowds in public, or are doing stakeouts to catch consanguineous lovers breaking laws against consensual incest. That's the good news. But let's take a closer look at the bad news.

Self-incrimination. One of the problems is that people either "confess" or tell law enforcement way too much that they don't have to. One or more of them admit the relationship, often not aware it is (still, stupidly) illegal where they are, wrongly thinking if they explain it was consensual then of course the police will leave them alone. For a real-life example of this, see this posting. Law enforcement may also get a hold of some media (love letters, homemade videos) that documents the sexual aspect of the relationship. That's right... doing something so many other lovers do freely can be used against these consensual relationships.

Ratted out. Someone outside of the relationship, whether a nosy neighbor, a malicious ex, a jealous or envious family member, even a professional/academic/social rival sees something, hears something, or just gets a hunch based on how the lovers are smitten with each other and they contact the authorities. See this example.

Child. If someone dares to exercise their reproductive rights and have a child together, the DNA of that child is proof of parentage. Contrary to popular myths, most children born to close relatives are healthy and do not look any different than any other child. Many of the ones I've seen are beautiful children. But, if the child's DNA is tested and the results showing the parents are consanguineous reported to the authorities, depending on the circumstances it may be used as evidence against the lovers. See this example.
Caught in public. Many, many people have had sex in "public" places, usually without getting caught. Depending on the circumstances, police might send the lovers on their way. But, if in checking identification and asking questions, the police determine that the lovers are closely related (see "self-incrimination" above), they might arrest the lovers even when they would have otherwise let them go. See this example.

So what can those who enjoy consanguinamory do to protect themselves? Any of these steps might help.

1) Consult a lawyer. I am not a lawyer. A criminal defense or family law attorney might be someone well worth consulting.

2) Move to more enlightened states or countries. Moving also may get you away from those who are aware of your biological relation and would oppose your relationship. The best states in the US are Rhode Island and New Jersey. Perhaps the worst state is Texas, which technically criminalizes sex between first cousins.

3) Be careful who you tell and what you tell them. In the US, we have a Constitutional right against self-incrimination (see 5th Amendment) and the right to remain silent when arrested by law enforcement. It's a good idea when dealing with police to give them polite, brief "yes" or "no" or "I don't know" or "I don't remember" answers unless even one of those could incriminate you. In the US, you also have the right to an attorney and it is a good idea speak up and ask for a lawyer if you're held or taken in by police. Also in the US, unless there is imminent danger to someone, you don't have the let police into your home without a search warrant, and even search warrants can have limits. YOU may think something is obvious and gives you away, the police may even have figured it out, but staying silent about it can still protect you.

4) Be careful what you document. Many lovers enjoy taking video or pictures of themselves having fun with each other, but for the consanguinamorous, such media, if it falls into the wrong hands, can be trouble.
5) Have a cover story. Anticipate questions, whether from those you know you or those who don't who might not approve. There's nothing unusual or unconventional about family members living together, going places together, or frequently visiting each other. In extreme situations, consanguineous lovers might want to take on "beards," meaning pretending to have a relationship with (even marrying) others to direct attention away from their "forbidden" relationship. If someone does this, it is better not to deceive the beard(s) but rather have an agreement with someone who is fully informed. An example of an ideal situation along these lines would be if two siblings from one family married two siblings from another family. Such marriages have always gone on and were even popular in some places in the past, whether as real marriages or as beard situations.

6) Know your risk in having biological children together. Many consanguineous lovers opt not to take the risk, either for genetic reasons or legal reasons (or, like other people, because they just plain preferred not to have children). In some places, a credible defense if DNA proves a child was born to close relatives is to claim that the child was conceived through using a turkey baster or condom or sex toy that resulted in artificial insemination (the claim would be that the male ejaculated onto or into the object, which was then inserted into the female). In such places, it is the actual sex act that is criminal, not having genetic children together.
7) Stick to private places and lock the door when you get to the fun.


Note that most ethicists say it is OK to lie to authorities who are trying to enforce unjust laws or polices. An extreme example is a Nazi SS officer asking you, "Are you hiding any Jews here?" It was ethical to say "No." Well, I think that applies here, too, though the situation is not as extreme. It is nobody else's business if adults are having consensual sex.

This advice shouldn't even be necessary, but until we get to the point where we have relationship rights for all adults, including full marriage equality, consanguinamorous people should think about protecting themselves. Of course, some level of trouble is necessary to make change. Laws need to be overturned in courts or changed by legislatures, but it is up to each set of lovers to decide for themselves if they want to come out of the closet to push for those things. I have seen at least two couples come out publicly on Facebook, which resulted, in at least one of the cases, them being given trouble by some of the people who were supposed to be their friends. But the more other people realize that consanguinamory is a reality all around them, the sooner the persecution will be greatly reduced.

Police officers usually have some wiggle-room when it comes to investigating or arresting people can can look the other way if they choose. Prosecutors can choose not to prosecute. Judges can dismiss cases. Juries can refuse to convict (research jury nullification). So I beg these people to let consenting adults love each other without harassment, without prosecution.

Do you have any suggestions? Any tales to tell about what you've done to protect yourself, or being caught, or catching someone? What do you think, dear reader? Leave a comment or email me.

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Today's Example of Insufficient Reporting

From news-mail.com.au comes this headline....
Jail threat for incest sex offender who broke order


As we know, where consanguinamory is still criminalized, "incest" can mean a variety of things. Unfortunately, the text of the article doesn't shed much light on the situation.

A REGISTERED sex offender who failed to comply with his reporting conditions before missing two court dates now has two months of jail hanging over his head after facing court.

The 24-year-old man, who can not be named, became a reportable offender in 2008 after being convicted of incest.
No more information about the original case is given. In 2008, he was 18 years old, give or take. Assuming the original case was about something that happened in Queensland, it isn't criminal to have sex with someone who is 16 years or older unless "sodomy" is involved or unless they are closely related, which are ridiculous restrictions. So, it is entirely possible this man to have been convicted of "incest" for having had consensual sex with a 17-year-old sibling, half-sibling, nephew or niece, whether they were raised together or not. If that is what happened, it shouldn't have been a criminal matter in the first place,  he shouldn't be a "sex offender," and nobody should care that he didn't report.

On the other hand, he could have been molesting or assaulting a 3-year-old, in which case he shouldn't be walking free at all right now.

But we have no way of knowing, because "incest" is applied to both situations, and the journalists who put this story online were probably just repeating what an insufficient court announcement said, without anyone asking for clarification.




Will Utah Make Legislative Baby Steps?

After a federal judge did what should have been a no-brainer to everyone and slapped down Utah's criminalization of polyfidelity and polyamorous cohabitation, a state legislator is trying to make baby steps in the law, as reported by Antone Clark at standard.net...
Rep. Jerry Anderson, R-Price, said House Bill 56 was inspired by a federal judge's ruling in December striking down part of the state's law banning polygamy, following legal action brought by the stars of a TV reality series "Sister Wives." The court ruling threw out the state's section of law prohibiting cohabitation, saying it violates the constitutional guarantee of due process and religious freedom.

Not to mention freedom of association, right to privacy, etc.
His bill is only 29 lines long, and essentially changes the definition of cohabitation and then points out under existing law, bigamy is a third-degree felony.
Bigamy shouldn't be a crime unless it involves fraud. An adult should be free to marry any & all consenting adults. If someone is married and they are marrying another, that shouldn't be hidden from current spouses. Absent that sort of deception, there's no reason for polyamorists to be denied their fundamental rights.
He said the state's existing bigamy definition forces many people into the shadows. He said thousands of schoolchildren list their fathers as unknown, to avoid dealing with the implications of being in violation of the law.

He said the state's existing definition of bigamy puts police officers in a tough position.
Exactly. Criminalization of consensual adult relationships is destructive, causing many unnecessary problems.

This is a baby step. Really, any US state needs relationship rights, including full marriage equality, for all.

UPDATE: The bill is "dead" as the lawmakers sit around waiting for further court action. Sigh.

Monday, February 3, 2014

Will The Philippines Take a Step Backwards?

As reported by Xianne Arcangel at gmanetwork.com, lawmakers in the Philippines are considering legislation that would criminalize consanguinamory.
Incestuous affairs between family members 18 years old and above—even if done with consent—may soon be penalized if the proposed Anti-Incest bill is passed into law.
 
House Bill 3329, filed by Cagayan de Oro representative Rufus Rodriguez and his brother ABAMIN party-list representative Maximo Rodriguez Jr., seeks to penalize incest between consenting parties.
Very bad idea. Not only would it move the nation away from, rather than closer to, relationship rights for all adults, including full marriage equality, but criminalizing CONSENSUAL adult relationships will make it harder for law enforcement to stop ABUSERS because resources will be diverted AND witnesses and victims will be less willing to cooperate out of fear of law enforcement.
Rodriguez said in a statement on Sunday that an Anti-Incest law is needed to address the "rising" number of incestuous relationships occurring in families of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs).
That doesn't actually say why they should be criminalized. And the number probably isn't rising. They are just becoming more aware of the reality that has always been there.
Under Articles 37 and 38 of the Family Code of the Philippines, incestuous marriages are void ab initio—from the beginning—for being contrary to public policy.
That needs to be dumped.
The Anti-Rape Law of 1997, meanwhile, imposes the death penalty for rape when the victim is under 18 years old and the offender is a relative within the third civil degree, or when the offender is the common-law spouse of the parent of the abused individual.
So children are already protected.
Under HB 3329, incestuous sexual relations with consent between ascendants and descendants of any degree, as well as between brothers and sisters whether of the full or half blood will be prohibited and considered unlawful.  
There is no good reason for this.
In-laws, stepparents and stepchildren, adoptive parents and their children, as well as collateral blood relatives, whether legitimate or illegitimate up to the fourth civil degree, are also banned from having incestuous affairs.
Ridiculous.
Violators shall be punished with prision correccional, or imprisonment for from six months to six years. 
Why? To whom are they a threat?
Jhoanna Ballaran of the manilatimes.net also covered this news.

An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults.

Thursday, January 23, 2014

Coverage of Genetic Sexual Attraction Case

Ignorance abounds when it comes to Genetic Sexual Attraction, as evidenced by both many of the journalists writing about the Mistie Atkinson case and certainly the people commenting on the stories. Outlets all over the word have covered the story, most just reprinting versions of the same two or three articles. [I am bumping this up because a news outlet decided to print this story as if it just happened.]

Here it is at dailymail.co.uk. The headline?
Mom who made sex tape with son, 16, is jailed for four years... but says it was just a case of 'genetic attraction' after they were reunited after 15 years apart
That makes it sound like she was making a video to show others.
Mistie Rebecca Atkinson, 32, was sentenced to four years and eight months behind bars in Napa County Superior Court, California on Wednesday.

It came after she was found in a Ukiah, California motel room with the 16-year-old boy, who had recorded his mother giving him oral sex on his phone.
 So he recorded it.


Caught: They were found together in a motel room after relatives learned of their explicit Facebook messages
Here's the coverage at nydailynews.com.

Here is it at newsone.com.

Here it is at ktvu.com.

Even a site called eastafricanmoviedatabase.com printed the article.

Seamus O'Riley blogged the NY Daily News article.

Here is one of the comments...

equinox displayed complete ignorance of GSA... 
When is a rose not a rose? Incest by any other name smells so sweet. Let's play innocence by semantics today! 
Must be nice to be so sure that nobody else could possibly experience something you haven't.

And there were several comments from people who said she must have intended to assault him from the start. After all, why else would a woman care about seeing the person to whom she gave birth? Ignorance abounds.

Here is the inquisitr.com coverage, and the kolotv.com coverage, and the bossip.com coverage, where she is called crazy. Finally, see this blog for the same sort of thing, where she os called "sicko."

This was most certainly not incest in the sociological sense. She was not the boy's guardian. She did not raise the boy. She should be treated no more harshly than any other 32 year-old woman who does the same things with a 16 year-old boy in the state of California. If anything, the sentences in GSA cases that don't involve violence should be more lenient and focus on counseling.

Friday, January 17, 2014

Frequently Asked Question: Why Is Incest Illegal?


It shouldn’t be illegal anywhere, as you’ll see. As always, we note that we are talking about consensual incest, such as between consenting adults and between minors close in age. We are not talking about anything involving coercion or force or molestation. There are laws against rape, assault, and molestation, and they should remain. We are talking about consensual incest, consanguineous sex and marriage, and consanguinamory, whether initiated through Genetic Sexual Attraction or not.

Short answer: It isn’t illegal everywhere, but where it is, it is the lingering result of sex-police holdovers, superstition, prejudice, and legislative inertia.

Long answer:



A significant part of the reason is that some cultures have an ancient taboo against incest, which begs the question, “Why is incest taboo?”

There seems to be more than one plausible reason why some cultures have had an incest taboo, in addition to protecting the power of the leaders.

1) The taboo appears to be an adoption as law or culture of the biological Westermarck effect, which is a common experience but not one experienced by everyone. Because of this effect, many people develop an avoidance of their close family members as sexual partners, and people have often expected that everyone feels the same way they do, and in many cases try to discourage people from acting differently than they do. But for those who, due to separation or some other reason, don’t experience the Westermarck effect, the bond becomes especially strong if it grows into a consanguinamorous one. It could be that if nobody had experienced the Westermarck effect, most people wouldn’t have ever “left the nest” (unless driven out by the dominant male) and the human race would have had a harder time developing genetic diversity, which was very important to survival when the human population was low. Without a growing and genetically diverse population, the entire population could have easily been wiped out by one disease. We hardly have that problem anymore. So in that respect, the Westermarck effect is vestigial and the taboo is no longer needed. (Note that the need for a growing population was also important when everything was accomplished through much physical labor, requiring many people. This was also one of the reasons why some cultures discouraged same-gender pairing that excluded males from bonding with females and making babies.)

2) Also, in patriarchal societies, it was common to trade daughters away in a business deal or to form alliances with other clans or nations. Especially if virginity was valued in new brides, it didn’t help matters if she was in love with, and making love with, her brother. But as with the previous reason, life has changed much and fewer segments of humanity are trading daughters like bargaining chips.

3) When the entire town or village was expected to attend the same church or temple, the taboo was reinforced if that religion had a prohibition against it. But in many places, this is no longer the case.

Incest was one of many things prohibited in the ancient nation of Israel, per the Torah. Church and political authorities have found incest prohibitions useful not only as part of overall control of sexuality, but for making accusations against opponents and the inconvenient (and how does one prove that they didn’t have sex with someone else?)… and to prevent any one other family from building up and retaining too much power. While royals in Egypt, Hawaii, Europe, and elsewhere married siblings, cousins, and other relatives to retain power, they often  denied other people that right for the same reason.

The religion-imposed taboo should not be underestimated, and leads us into the Other Reasons Incest is Illegal in Some Places.

In many places, there has been an official national or state religion, perhaps with a religious organization having at least some direct influence on the laws. Even in the US, where the Constitution now guarantees freedom of religion and there has been a firmly established separation of church and state, some states were originally colonies established with their own official churches. New states often set up their laws by copying from existing states, and the US has had some Puritan origins, later Victorian influence, and so forth. Famously, alcohol was banned under Prohibition less than a hundred years ago. Before that, women couldn’t even vote and there were many restrictions placed on women that were not placed on men, and thus there was gender inequality under the law and a woman was more or less the property of her father or brother until or unless she married, at which time she became the property of her husband.

Female schoolteachers were expected to abstain from sex or resign if they married. Female pageant contestants had to swear that they were virgins. Until recently, it was common for college dormitory buildings (if not the college itself) to be segregated by gender, complete with curfews and supervisors to try to make sure that students, who were 18 years and older, were not having sex (heterosexual, anyway). Innkeepers, landlords, and property sellers would routinely (often by law) refuse to accommodate or do business with unmarried, mixed-gendered couples.

Boys and young men routinely faced criminal charges for consensual sex with females (or men of any age could be civilly charged with “breach of promise”.)

It was common to have laws against anything but heterosexual intercourse between a husband and a wife. That meant oral sex between a husband and wife was technically illegal, as was any gay or lesbian sex (gay bars were raided by police), unmarried sex or cohabitation; even sex toys and birth control have been illegal in some places. There are still places in the US where someone can be sued for “alienation of affection” for having sex with a married person. Never mind that, even where illegal, brothels have always existed, and fathers have taken their sons to them for their son to have pleasant sexual encounter with a professional, and have mingled with people in power as fellow customers. Never mind that quietly having lovers on the side has been something that has always taken place.

There have also been, and in many ways remain, laws against and restrictions on various forms of dancing, nudity, “crossdressing,” and erotica.

With this sex-negative attitude, it isn’t surprising that there have been laws against incest. What may be surprising is that such laws have remained on the books. There has been a progression of civil rights in places like the US that is moving towards an adult having the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults, but we’re still not there. Loving v. Virginia struck down bans on (heterosexual, monogamous) interracial marriages. The Lawrence s. Texas decision struck down laws against gay sex. Cases regarding polyamory and (monogamous) same-sex marriage are currently winding their way through US courts.

In order for remaining laws against consensual incest to be removed, we'll likely need a good test case for the courts. What that would require is a respectable and otherwise law-abiding (and attractive wouldn’t hurt) long-term consanguinamorous couple to fight a state law against consensual incest. The catch-22 is that since people can be, and are, prosecuted for engaging in this consensual relationship, lovers have a strong motivation to hide these relationships, and that is a hindrance to getting the laws changed. It would help if a couple in a state, such as Rhode Island, with no law against consensual incest, applied for a marriage license and subsequently got the courts to overturn prohibitions on consanguineous marriages. However, in addition to fear of prosecution and other legal problems, some people who are, or have been, involved in consanguinamory would prefer the law and/or the taboo remain in place, either because they like being the rebel, they are self-loathing, or they can’t (anymore) have what they want and they don’t want anyone else to have it, either. But they are the minority; most people involved in these relationships very much want their rights.

Throughout all of history, around the world, royal or peasants, urban or royal, rich or poor, there have been close relatives engaging in experimentation or having lifelong spousal-type relationships, and everything in between. You know people who have been involved in consanguinamory whether you know it or not, and whether or not your genealogical charts reveal it, chances are that you don’t have to go too far back in your family tree to find an ancestor whose true biological parents were close relatives.

There are people in relationships right now who would benefit if they had their right to marry. There is now no good reason to keep these laws and the taboo that deny an adult the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults. We’re not all going to want the same love lives as each other, but we should allow people to have the relationships of their mutual choosing, the ones in which they will function best.

An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults without being subjected to prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.

How You Can Help


Question: Why is incest illegal? Is incest illegal? Why is incest wrong? Is incest wrong? Why is consensual incest illegal? Is consensual incest illegal? Why is consensual incest wrong? Is consensual incest wrong? Why is incest illegal between consenting adults?

Wednesday, January 8, 2014

Is There Any Sexuality You Don't Support?


Someone asked me that question privately.

If by sexuality, one means gender identity or sexual orientation… I support people being free to be themselves, as long as they don’t force themselves on others (like predators of children).

Regarding sex…

I believe in the basic human rights of freedom of religion, association, expression, and assembly. Anything consenting adults do together should be up to them, and should not be something to be subjected to criminal prosecution, discrimination, or bullying. Nor should minors close in age be prosecuted or forced into “treatment” for having sex with each other.

I don't consider rape, assault, or child molestation to be "sex." I'm all for prosecuting for those.

I think if someone is at the age of consent for sex, that age of consent should also apply to being recorded or photographed. If someone wants to make videos of themselves to take pictures of themselves or let someone else do it, and they want to show it to others, and another person of the age of consent wants to view it, fine.

Regarding marriage…

I support the right to marry for everyone. An adult should be free to marry any and all consenting adults.

But…

My support of legal rights and protections does not mean I personally support all sex or marriages.

For example, I think it is a bad idea for, say, a woman who needs monogamy to have sex on the first date, and if a friend like that wants my "support" I would tell her no, it is a bad idea.

Another example… I think it is safe to say we’ve all known people who announced they were going to get married and we cringed (if only inside) because we didn’t think they were right for each other, or perhaps in a place in their lives where they were ready to be married.

I am also against cheating (but again, I don’t think it should be a criminal matter). Cheating is when someone breaks an existing vow to another through action, rather than informing the person(s) with whom they have the vow that the agreement is ending. There are married couples who have agreements that allow one or both of them to have sex with other people, and per those agreements doing so would not be cheating.

However, if someone tells me they are happily involved with their close biological relative, or two close biological relatives, and none of them are cheating to do it, then yes, I support them. I support happy, healthy same-gender relationships, interracial relationships, polyamorous relationships, intergenerational relationships (adults), and consanguinamorous relationships.

I am sex-positive. Sex is a good thing for many reasons. We’d be better off if more people were having more sex and sex that was more satisfying to them. So generally, I “support sex.” Those who don’t think sex is a good thing or talk as though it isn’t may be doing it wrong, or may have forgotten what it is like.

What about you? Are you sex-positive?

Monday, December 30, 2013

Gay Marriage and Incest in the US

Gay marriage (or same-sex marriage, or most accurately same-gender marriage) and incest (consensual, not talking about rape or molestation) are usually two different things.

In the US, the bigotry against marriage equality currently extends to preventing first cousins from marrying in a little over half of the states. As of this updated writing, bigotry still prevents any same-gender couples from marrying in all but eighteen states and Washington, D.C. There are currently fourteen states (including Maine, Minnesota, Illinois, and Utah which have very limiting restrictions) and D.C. that allow first cousins to marry and also has the same-gender freedom to marry. If you consider cousin marriage incestuous, then those are the only places where gay marriage and incestuous marriage have an overlap, as same-gender first cousins can marry.

There are some states that do not criminalize consensual incest between closer relatives than cousins, but they will not marry those lovers. Most US states still have laws against consensual incest (consanguinamory), and in most of them, people do continue to be prosecuted for simply loving each other.

Laws against gay sex have been struck down by the Supreme Court. So, gay sex is legal nationwide, consanguinamory isn’t.

Mixed-gender consanguinamory (such as brother-sister sex) involves sex between consenting adults of who are closely related.*

Gay marriage is a commitment between consenting adults of the same gender.

Those are usually not the same things.

What they do have in common: 1. They are between consenting adults. 2. They don’t hurt anybody. 3. Both have been subject to discrimination and being banned by the sex-negative busybodies who like to interfere in the love lives of others. 4. There is no rational reason, consistently applied to other relationships, as to why either of these are banned where they are banned.  5. Gays and lesbians do not choose their orientation and people do not choose the parents to whom they are born.

Otherwise, they are two entirely different freedoms to marry. I support both freedoms to marry, and others, because I support relationship rights for all and full marriage equality.

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, bullying, or discrimination. Don't like it? Then don't do it. (That’s a good, easy response to bigots that doesn't throw anyone under the bus.)

Different people have different likes and dislikes, different biases and prejudices than others. Some LGBT people are in consanguinamorous relationships. Other LGBT people are supportive, some neutral, and some disgusted by the idea. Just like everyone else. But nobody's disgust should interfere in another's life.

Consenting adults may do things with each other that might disgust a majority of other consenting adults, but that disgust of others should not prevent the consenting adults from having their sex or love lives. Each of us should stand up for the relationship rights of all consenting adults. Gay sex may disgust someone. Heterosexual sex may disgust another. BDSM may disgust someone else. Interracial sex may disgust someone else. Polyamory may disgust one person. Consanguinamory may disgust another. So what? The disgusted person doesn’t have to do it, but should recognize that other adults should be free to have orientations, feelings, and relationships they may not understand, and free to express their sexual desires with, and affections for, other consenting adults in the ways they want.


I was originally inspired to write this by the comments by Nick Cassavetes and the reactions to it.

*Some places include adoptive or step relations under the criminalization of incest, even though there is no biological relation between the participants.

Gay Marriage and Incest in the US

Gay marriage (or same-sex marriage, or most accurately same-gender marriage) and incest (consensual, not talking about rape or molestation) are usually two different things.

In the US, the bigotry against marriage equality currently extends to preventing first cousins from marrying in a little over half of the states. As of this updated writing, bigotry still prevents any same-gender couples from marrying in all but eighteen states and Washington, D.C. There are currently fourteen states (including Maine, Minnesota, Illinois, and Utah which have very limiting restrictions) and D.C. that allow first cousins to marry and also has the same-gender freedom to marry. If you consider cousin marriage incestuous, then those are the only places where gay marriage and incestuous marriage have an overlap, as same-gender first cousins can marry.

There are some states that do not criminalize consensual incest between closer relatives than cousins, but they will not marry those lovers. Most US states still have laws against consensual incest (consanguinamory), and in most of them, people do continue to be prosecuted for simply loving each other.

Laws against gay sex have been struck down by the Supreme Court. So, gay sex is legal nationwide, consanguinamory isn’t.

Mixed-gender consanguinamory (such as brother-sister sex) involves sex between consenting adults of who are closely related.*

Gay marriage is a commitment between consenting adults of the same gender.

Those are usually not the same things.

What they do have in common: 1. They are between consenting adults. 2. They don’t hurt anybody. 3. Both have been subject to discrimination and being banned by the sex-negative busybodies who like to interfere in the love lives of others. 4. There is no rational reason, consistently applied to other relationships, as to why either of these are banned where they are banned.  5. Gays and lesbians do not choose their orientation and people do not choose the parents to whom they are born.

Otherwise, they are two entirely different freedoms to marry. I support both freedoms to marry, and others, because I support relationship rights for all and full marriage equality.

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, bullying, or discrimination. Don't like it? Then don't do it. (That’s a good, easy response to bigots that doesn't throw anyone under the bus.)

Different people have different likes and dislikes, different biases and prejudices than others. Some LGBT people are in consanguinamorous relationships. Other LGBT people are supportive, some neutral, and some disgusted by the idea. Just like everyone else. But nobody's disgust should interfere in another's life.

Consenting adults may do things with each other that might disgust a majority of other consenting adults, but that disgust of others should not prevent the consenting adults from having their sex or love lives. Each of us should stand up for the relationship rights of all consenting adults. Gay sex may disgust someone. Heterosexual sex may disgust another. BDSM may disgust someone else. Interracial sex may disgust someone else. Polyamory may disgust one person. Consanguinamory may disgust another. So what? The disgusted person doesn’t have to do it, but should recognize that other adults should be free to have orientations, feelings, and relationships they may not understand, and free to express their sexual desires with, and affections for, other consenting adults in the ways they want.


I was originally inspired to write this by the comments by Nick Cassavetes and the reactions to it.

*Some places include adoptive or step relations under the criminalization of incest, even though there is no biological relation between the participants.

Sunday, December 29, 2013

Marriage Equality Amendment

I once found this blog where someone was proposing a "Marriage Equality Amendment.”

The simple text of the proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation.

We are definitely in favor of lifting restrictions that prevent someone from marrying someone of the same gender. But this amendment would still leave on the books numerous laws that prevent full marriage equality. The people on whose behalf I am blogging would not only still be prevented from having their marriages recognized, but many could be imprisoned for openly living as married. Prejudice against one is prejudice against all.

A better wording for the amendment would be:
The right to marry or to personal consortium shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex, gender, sexual orientation, ancestry, consanguinity, or number of participants.

Haven’t we progressed to this point? Why prevent consenting adults from loving each other?

[This entry bumped up because it is as relevant as ever.]

Marriage Equality Amendment

I once found this blog where someone was proposing a "Marriage Equality Amendment.”

The simple text of the proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation.

We are definitely in favor of lifting restrictions that prevent someone from marrying someone of the same gender. But this amendment would still leave on the books numerous laws that prevent full marriage equality. The people on whose behalf I am blogging would not only still be prevented from having their marriages recognized, but many could be imprisoned for openly living as married. Prejudice against one is prejudice against all.

A better wording for the amendment would be:
The right to marry or to personal consortium shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex, gender, sexual orientation, ancestry, consanguinity, or number of participants.

Haven’t we progressed to this point? Why prevent consenting adults from loving each other?

[This entry bumped up because it is as relevant as ever.]

Categories