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.

Read more »

Posted in: Africa,breaking up homes,brother-sister,children,consanguineous,family reaction,incest,lack of equality harms,law,media,persecution,prejudice,siblings,stigma

Ten Myths About Sibling Consanguinamory

I’ve noticed some common myths expressed about sibling consanguinamory. In this instance, by consanguinamory, I mean everything from curious exploration and experimenting to erotic romance, including masturbating in front of each other, erotic kissing, sexual touching or rubbing, oral sex, intercourse, etc.

This entry is NOT addressing molestation, assault, or abuse.

I’m referring to adult siblings, or minor siblings who are close in age, engaging in mutual affection or experimentation, without coercion, force, or intimidation. It may be two siblings alone, it may be three or more siblings, or it may be two or more siblings involved together with one or more people outside of the immediate family.

These myths need to be addressed, because they perpetuate inequality, discrimination, hardship, confusion, stigmas, ignorance, and fear.

Myth #1 “It doesn’t happen” or “It happens very rarely” or “I don’t know anyone who has done this.” Just because one person hasn’t been involved or doesn’t remember being involved with sibling doesn’t mean it isn’t happening with others. It is, and it always has. Ongoing sexual relationships between siblings are common enough that everyone knows someone who is, or has been in, such a relationship, and far more siblings than that have had an encounter or experimented, explored, or played doctor. Reality: We all know people who've been involved, whether we know it or not.

Myth #2 “Siblings don’t have sex, rather it is always that one sibling abuses another” or ”It only happens between siblings who have been abused or neglected” or “It always means they need therapy.” At the heart of this is myth is that, because of the dynamics between siblings, one sibling can’t consent to have sex with another. This ignores siblings who weren’t raised together, but even with siblings who were raised together, the claim that one can’t consent to sex with another is an unsupported assertion based on personal aversion, a personal history of abuse, ignorance, or even the absurd notion that females don’t want or enjoy sex. If an 18-year-old woman can legally consent to group sex with three male cage fighters who are strangers to her, or consent to be the mistress of a billionaire with a spouse and children, the President of the United States, or a someone who rented a room in her childhood home and was present for her entire childhood, how can we be consistent in saying that she can't consent to sex with her twin brother or sister? When it comes to minors, most family therapists don’t consider it abuse if minors close in age experiment or have sex; it is considered mutual experimentation (think teenagers who are four or fewer years apart). Abuse and sex are two different things. Sex does happen in some families. Unfortunately, so does abuse. But they aren’t the same thing. Reality: Some siblings do willingly share this at some point in their lives, and may not need therapy at all.

Myth #3. “It only happens as youthful experimentation. Adults don't do this.” While such contact is more common among siblings living together in their youth, it may continue throughout their lives or be initiated during adulthood: everything from while they’re at college to during their senior years. It can happen when siblings are introduced or reunited (Genetic Sexual Attraction,) during a time of personal discovery or experimentation, while one siblings cares for another through an illness or after an accident, during times of grieving, after a breakup or divorce or death of a spouse/lover… anytime, really. Reality: Some siblings share this throughout their lives, some starting late in life.

Myth #4 “It is unnatural.” This myth is not supported either in human history or in other species. While it is very common for people who spent their childhoods in the same residence together, whether genetically related or not, to develop a suppression of sexual attraction to each other (this has been described as the Westermarck Effect), this does not happen to everyone, and siblings who aren’t raised together are often attracted to each other; studies reveal most people are attracted to people who look like them. Reality: In many cases, nothing is more natural.

Myth #5. “It is wrong” or “It is destructive” or “It needs to be stopped” or “They won’t be able to go on to have normal lives.” Different people are going to have different moral guidelines about sex, but sibling consanguinamory is not considered wrong by everyone or all cultures. In many cases, it is advantageous compared to having the siblings involved with others. Nor is there anything inherently destructive about it, but rather some find it constructive. The only way to stop it is to have constant, direct supervision of the siblings 24/7/365. This, however, is needless. For most, the involvement is for a season and it will pass. For others, it will last a lifetime. Either way, there’s no good reason to try to stop it. The only hindrance to having a “normal life” for siblings who continue together is the bigotry of others. Reality: For some, it is the best of all possibilities, it is wonderful and constructive, and they lead perfectly normal, even unusually good lives.

Myth #6 “Only loners, losers, freaks, or ugly people do this” or “It only happens in rural, southern (in the US), poor, uneducated families.” 
Reality: Sibling consanguinamory happens in every demographic and in every part of the US and the world. There are attractive, outgoing, popular, successful, wealthy, educated people who have been, or are still involved with a sibling.

Myth #7 “If they have children, they will be deformed” or “It causes birth defects.” Incest, if it results in a birth, does not cause birth defects in and of itself. Most children born to close relatives are healthy. You know some, whether you know it or not and whether they know their own true parentage or not. Birth defects can be the result of injury during pregnancy, substances ingested during pregnancy, environmental factors, or genetic problems. It is the last one that people tend to be thinking of, usually, when they repeat this myth. That’s because when both genetic parents carry the same genetic problem, it may be demonstrated in the children. However, this can happen with parents who aren’t closely related, too. Reality: Most children born to siblings are healthy.

Myth #8 “It always ruins sibling relationships” or “A person needs a nonsexual relationship with their sibling.” Many siblings report that consaguinamory made them much closer, even if they have ceased that part of their relationship. As far as someone needing a nonsexual relationship with a sibling… that would mean that people who are only children (having no siblings) would suffer, when the studies say otherwise. Also, if someone has more than one sibling, that usually means they’ll still have a nonsexual relationship with the other. Reality: For many siblings, consanguinamory made their relationship much better, and they relate to other people better as a result.

Myth #9 “It is illegal everywhere.” No, it isn’t. But where it is, the laws should be changed. Some people say such laws are needed to prevent societal collapse due to everyone making mutant babies with their siblings. As already explained, most children born to siblings are healthy. Even so, sibling consanguinamory and reproduction are two different things. In most places where consanguinamory is legally banned, it is entirely legal for brothers and sisters to have genetic children together through artificial insemination. It is entirely legal for someone with Huntington’s Disease to have children, even though the odds are dramatically higher than with a random pair of siblings that the children will have a debilitating disease. We can also look at places where it is legal for brothers and sisters to have sex and children together, such as Spain, Portugal, Rhode Island, and New Jersey. Has there been a crisis as a result in any of those places? (Snooki excluded.) Furthermore, the person who says anti-consanguinamory laws are needed to prevent widespread inbreeding makes it sound like everyone wants to have babies with their sibling, and the only thing holding them back is the law (perhaps there is something they want to tell us?) MOST people will not have intercourse with or marry their siblings, and even many siblings who do will not have genetic children together. Another part of this myth is that laws against consanguinamory prevent abuse. Abuse is illegal regardless of consanguinamory laws, and criminalizing consensual sex actually makes it more difficult to get victims and witnesses to cooperate in the prosecuting of abusers. Reality: Sibling consanguinamory is legal in several US states and many developed countries, but where stupid laws still apply, those unjust laws must go.

Myth #10 “Siblings don’t need the freedom to marry.” This is often augmented with “because they are already family.” But siblings who are sharing their lives as spouses 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 one or both siblings and other siblings or their parents or grown children. For example, if brothers Adam & Steve have been living as spouses for years and Steve winds up in a coma in the hospital, their estranged, bigoted parents would likely be able to usurp Adam’s rights to make decisions. Finally, in relationships initiated through Genetic Sexual Attraction, they might not be considered family under the law, although in a loathsome double-standard, they may still be subject to discriminatory laws based on their genetic relation. Reality: An adult should be free to marry any and all consenting adults.

In Conclusion

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.

For further reading:

Common Objections Answered

What Family and Friends Should Know

Case Studies of Consanguinamorous Relationships

How Common is Consensual Incest?

Why Is Incest Illegal Anywhere?

Genetic Sexual Attraction

Consensual Incest FAQ

If You Are Considering It

myths lies misconceptions the truth about real true sibling brothers sisters brother-sister sister-sister brother-brother consanguineous sex incest lovemaking love marriage

Read more »

Posted in: brother-brother,brother-sister,consanguineous,FAQ,GSA,incest,love,myths,prejudice,siblings,sister-sister,stigma

New Republic Insults Hundreds of Millions

Alice Robb wrote at "The Strange Scholarship of Incest" at newrepublic.com...

Whether or not Meryl Streep deserves to win Best Actress for her turn as the deranged matriarch in August: Osage County is up for debate, but everyone who’s seen Tracy Letts’s play or the film adaptation should be able to agree on at least one thing: It makes for some uncomfortable viewing. And of all the disturbing elements that make up this saga—alcoholism, suicide, adultery—there’s one plotline that stands out as truly disturbing: the incestuous romance between Ivy and Little Charles, who believe they’re first cousins but—spoiler alert—turn out to be half-siblings.

Why is that disturbing?

Disgust seems like a pretty appropriate response to an affair between cousins, but historically, in societies around the world, marriage between cousins has been accepted and even encouraged.

And yet she calls it disgusting anyway, insulting hundreds of millions of people, including her own ancestors. Then she gets into that big question...

Is the taboo against incest a biological universal, or is it culturally derived? And if it’s a cultural construct, why is it so widespread?

Ultimately, when it comes to whether or not consenting adults should have their rights, the answer to that question isn't relevant.

“I’m not saying that it’s fine, but I think the genetic risks of incest are probably overestimated,” said Diane Paul, a professor at the University of Massachusetts Boston whose research focuses on the history of evolution and genetics.

It certainly is.

“It’s assumed it would be higher, but there’s a huge bias of ascertainment,” she explains. “If you have a baby [that’s the product of incest] with a problem, people say, ‘Oh, that’s why,’ but if the baby is healthy, no one says, ‘Look at that healthy baby’ [that’s the product of incest].”

DING! We have a winner.

“In terms of genetic distance, a half-sibling relationship is equivalent to an uncle-niece relationship or a double first cousin relationship” [double first cousins share both sets of grandparents], both of which are quite common in different societies,” says Alan Bittles, a researcher at the Centre for Comparative Genomics at Murdoch University in Australia.

Double first cousins can legally marry in some US states.

The article then gets into Westermarck.

It is very simple... if YOU are disgusted by something, don't do it. But it is rude, cruel, and unjust to try to stop consenting adults in love from being together.

Read more »

Posted in: academia,brother-sister,children,consanguineous,cousins,family reaction,media,prejudice,science,siblings,stigma

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

Read more »

Posted in: allies,FAQ,freedom to marry,LGBT,polyamory,science,stigma

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.

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,brother-sister,cheating,coming out,consanguineous,family reaction,FAQ,incest,siblings,stigma

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.

Read more »

Posted in: coming out,consanguineous,family reaction,FAQ,freedom to marry,incest,lack of equality harms,love,stigma,uncle-niece

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!

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,children,consanguineous,freedom to marry,incest,marriage equality,media,polyamory,polygamy,prejudice,solidarity,stigma

Defending Stephanie Seymour

(Time to bump this entry up to congratulate Stephanie Seymour on being the the new face of Estée Lauder. ALSO see update at the end.)

Here’s an example of someone trashing the beautiful Stephanie Seymour for daring to be affectionate with her son in public. I’ll edit the quotes slightly to remove language that some people still get upset about.

One of the things that has me saying “Are you f------ stupid?” are the photos of Stephanie Seymour and her son.

She goes on…

The photos do look like she’s making out with her son. A little creepy…yes!

Why is that creepy?

Is it normal for a son to cop a feel of the boobies?

For some people, yes. Jealous?

Turns out her son is gay. Which apparently makes it ok to make out with your hot Mom on a beach.

It’s okay for any adult to be affectionate with any consenting adult on a beach. It should certainly be legal.

My question is, “Are you f------ stupid?”

Maybe they were simply having some minimal affection. Or maybe it is a sign of more. What’s the problem? What’s stupid is trashing others for sharing love and affection.

I have to admit, I’m vey curious to hear your thoughts on the pics.

My thought is that it is too bad that everyone can’t be on such good terms with their parent or child.

February 12, 2014 UPDATE...

This photo shoot has fingers wagging now.

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,coming out,consanguineous,incest,love,media,mother-son,prejudice,stigma

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.

Read more »

Posted in: consanguineous,FAQ,GSA,help,incest,lack of equality harms,law,persecution,prejudice,prosecution,stigma

Cousins Can't Love Each Other Because it Makes Gay Babies

Or so says someone by the name of  Ropafadzo Mapimhidze writing at newsday.co.zw about the cruel treatment (including criminal conviction) recently of a couple of consenting adults in Zimbabwe, prosecuted for loving each other while being first cousins. You know, like hundred of millions of other people throughout history and alive today and legally married.

This story has generated so much debate and I decided to do a bit of research on reasons why incest is taboo, and why incest occurs despite the prohibition. And what the consequences are.

Where this is taboo, it is because of superstition, ignorance, legislative inertia, and control. It happens anyway because consenting adults love each other more than they pay attention to following unjust laws.

Such children can be born with extra toes, three eyes, and they can also grow to become homosexual, they may also have a low IQ and a potential to mentally harm future offspring, says the website. It also notes that such children can become people who are not able to interact with others or express love.

First of all, they were not prosecuted for having children. They were prosecuted for having sex. There is a difference. Also, all the columnist described above happens with unrelated lovers, too. In fact, we do not prevent people with obvious, serious, genetic diseases and birth defects from dating, having sex, having children, or marrying. But there are hundreds of millions of children from first cousins who are healthy, attractive, bright, and very social. Finally, there's nothing wrong with being gay.

The New York Times recently reported that first cousins are somewhat more likely than unrelated parents to have a child with a serious birth defect, mental retardation or genetic disease, but their increased risk is nowhere near as large as most people think, the newspaper quoted research done by some scientists.

But who needs scientists when we can listen to bigotry instead?

At least the piece does mention Genetic Sexual Attraction. Then it goes on to...

“Traditionally, such matters were dealt with by chiefs who then would find the rightful people to raise products of incest. We have to go back to our roots and see how best these matters can be dealt with the Zimbabwean way because these children are innocent victims of incest,” Kandiero said.

You know what makes children the biggest victims? When strangers use the power of unjust laws to force their parents apart and break up their home and brand their parents as criminals.

Read more »

Posted in: Africa,breaking up homes,children,consanguineous,cousins,GSA,lack of equality harms,myths,persecution,prejudice,prosecution,stigma,Zimbabwe

Rinella on Rights

The brilliant, talented, and lovely author Diane Rinella has just blogged about why we deny people their rights.

We don’t deny people their rights because we want to, we do it because they are in situations that either we don’t understand or can’t comprehend. We all know of the struggles that homosexuals have faced to gain the right to marry and be treated as equals. Every day we see it on the news and we experience it with our friends. Therefore, it is very easy to analyze the subject. However, what if the situation is something that you don’t think about? It’s a type of relationship that is happening around you, yet you’re completely unaware of it because those involved are living in shadows. The truth is, not only do you know people who are or have been involved in relationships you can’t fathom, you also know people who are being denied of their rights.

Go read the whole thing. Please!

Read more »

Posted in: allies,children,consanguineous,LGBT,marriage equality,polyamory,solidarity,stigma

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?

Read more »

Posted in: consanguineous,FAQ,freedom to marry,incest,law,myths,prejudice,prosecution,religion,stigma

There is Big Difference Between Love and Abuse

Candace Sutton had an article I found at heraldsun.com.au under the headline "The Australian Families That Hold Dark Secrets of Incest and Abuse." Unfortunately, for the sake of sensationalism, responsibility went out the window. This might contain triggers for some of you. Here's how the article starts...

BEHIND the door of an ordinary house in a working class Australian suburb, a man abused his three daughters over two decades, offering them to other men for sex and making them perform acts with animals. 

Inside at least three suburban houses in towns nestled in a major industrial Australian valley, one man started raping his 11-year-old daughter and then told her she was "damaged" and unlovable.

Sometimes he forced himself upon her twice a day.

For almost 30 years he kept her a virtual prisoner, fathering her four children who were all disabled.

A third case unfolded over four generations of a family which moved from state to state, always stopping in remote communities to avoid detection.

Eventually they came to rest in the hills behind a quiet rural village, where decades of inbreeding exploded into a horror story of degradation, squalor and rampant child sex under the approving gaze of three family matriarchs - a story which has shocked the world.

These are all terrible cases of child abuse, which involve various forms of abuse in addition to child rape. In this last case, the children would have had plenty of problems even if there has been no inbreeding.

Every week in communities big and small across Australia, children are sexually abused by their relatives.

And by people who aren't relatives. Either way, it is unacceptable.

The article goes on to detail child abuse situations. In the middle of all of that comes this...

Father and daughter John and Jennifer Deaves confessed on television their sex life was “absolutely fantastic”. Picture: Channel 9 Source: News Limited

Uh, What in the world is a picture and caption of a couple of ADULTS who had a CONSENSUAL relationship generated by Genetic Sexual Attraction doing in the middle of an article like this? I know Jennifer. You know what she is a victim of? Bigotry enshrined in law! In more than one way. This is not only offensive to adults who have loving, consensual relationships, it is also offensive to assault and molestation victims, because there is no comparing the situation of the Deaves to the abusive situations listed. This is highly irresponsible journalism. I doubt it was Sutton's decision, to be fair. She's just the person whose name is on the article and she probably didn't to the layout or headline.

Read more »

Posted in: Australia,children,consanguineous,GSA,incest,lack of equality harms,media,myths,prejudice,prosecution,stigma

What Genealogists Know

With each previous generation you trace back, the maximum possible number of your genetic ancestors doubles. You can have 2 parents, up to 4 grandparents, up to 8 great-grandparents, up to 16 great-great-grandparents, etc.

On average, there are about four generations per century. For people born in the year 2000, their 8 great-great-grandparents were probably born around 1900. Sometime around 1800 their great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents were born (there may be up to 128 of them). About 29 generations back, or roughly around the time of 1250-1300, the total number of your possible ancestors for that generation equals or exceeds the total population of the planet, which was about 500 million people.

What gives? Well, first of all, if all 500 million of those people were your ancestors, they would also be the ancestors of all of the rest of us, too.

Secondly, you probably don’t have every person alive back then as your ancestor. There wasn’t a lot of interracial or intercultural parenting going on back then. People were more isolated, more people lived in rural countrysides rather than dense urban areas, and people were not nearly as geographically or socially mobile as they are today. It was very common for a person to be born in and to die in the the same village or town, having lived all of her or his life there.

This means that for many, many, many, many generations, there was a lot of what most people would call today “inbreeding.” If your spouse wasn’t your first cousin, your spouse was likely a second or third cousin, or a second cousin-once removed, our even your double-cousin, etc. And as I’ve noted before, even if they weren’t marrying them, people were having children with siblings, aunts or uncles, etc. (Even if not having children together, what do you think went on, given that pubescent teens, like most children, were usually sharing a bedroom?) Not only did these things not destroy humanity, but in Europe, the Renaissance was birthed in these conditions.

Coming back to around 1800, very few people are likely to have 128 great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents, just like very few of those people in 1800 had 128 of them in 1600. Because chances are, some of your recent ancestors were cousins, if not closer. If you marry your first cousin, you have no more than six genetic grandparents between you, instead of eight. If your parents are first cousins, you have six great-grandparents instead of eight.

If “inbreeding” was as detrimental as common misconception says, none of us would be here.

Read more »

Posted in: children,consanguineous,cousins,incest,myths,science,stigma

Solidarity From Kim LaCapria

Recently at the dailyglobe.com, Kim LaCapria had the piece "Is Polyamory The New Gay Marriage? I Hope So."

The angry response to this concept that is so intriguing manifested after xoJane published what appears to be a controversial post by Angi Becker Stevens, titled simply “My Big Polyamorous Wedding.” In it, Stevens explains her plans to marry her boyfriend of several years — but plot twist: she’s already married, and planning to remain wed to her first husband.


Now, xoJane is a site where most posters and commenters are feminist and “sex positive,” but the response was overwhelmingly negative in the comments section. A small level of grudging acceptance was often appended with a “I don’t really like this, but …”, and even that was rare. Most posts demonstrated a visceral level of discomfort, fear, or otherwise disapproving assessment of Stevens’ life. (A life, we might add, that all parties involved seem to have chosen happily.)

Some people consent to, and want, things other people do not want. Why is that so hard to understand?

She points out that people quite often approach romantic or sexual relationships differently than they approach anything else in life...

Force or coercion is generally considered to be poor form, and socially discouraged — but if partners are not on the same “marriage timeline” we are, we’re advised by nearly everyone to force their hand on the matter or bail, never to consider that the decision is heavy and one to be arrived at when both parties are comfortable.

And if you question these unshakeable tenets — that there are minefields full of dealbreakers, that it’s “a breakup because it’s broken,” that “he’s just not that into you,” that tactical plays are the best route — you’re seen in one of two ways. Females are repeatedly told that it’s about “self worth,” and are called “doormats,” while men are accused of being “commitment-phobic,” “manchildren,” or simply are labeled cads.

In our strangely unformed collective opinion, you’re either the player or the played, so best to be on the offensive — a proposition we imbue with the collateral of divorce, expensive jewelry, or simply punitive use of affection. As a standard!

As such, we’ve arrived in 2013 with a post-women’s lib society and an adversarial playing ground for love. Or, at its bare bones, we no longer need the “sexual economy” on which marriage was based for so long. And in the absence of the sex for security exchange, we cling to the bizarrely dated, long-obsolete truths of monogamous marriage like some old harvest sacrifice, adhering to superstition and divination to declare certain certainties for which there really is no hard and fast rule.

Again, it isn't true that every person wants exactly the same thing when it comes to relationships as everyone else. And that's OK!

She cites the negative comments left after the article, bashing polyamorous people.

It goes on — but the ambient theme in the discussion of polyamory vis a vis gay marriage is fear. Fear we will be forced to “share,” fear that the promised happy ending will look different than what we’ve seen on Pinterest, fear that, most of all, our commitments will be tested time and again rather than a foregone conclusion, a Rachel McAdams and Ryan Gosling kiss in the rain, a post-script to the story of how we “got” the guy or girl — as if a person were a thing to get.

It seems the question of whether polyamory is the next gay marriage is secondary to the real question — why does every major divergence from “one man, one woman” terrify us so intensely, and why do we continue to indulge the idea others’ choices disrupt or even threaten our own?

BINGO!

Gay marriage has, in reality, always existed. So has polyamory. It is just that we're no longer going to force everyone into a closet unless they stick with a narrow heteromonogamous stay-within-your-race mold. Those days are over. Good riddance! Get used to it.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,LGBT,media,polyamory,polygamy,prejudice,solidarity,stigma

Some People Have Attractive Cousins

Sigh. When will "we" stop broadly condemning the relationships of others because of our own personal dislikes or ignorance? At thegloss.com I found a bit by Joanna Rafael with the headline "WTF? People Are Tweeting Their Incest Fantasies." We're talking about cousins.

Maybe I’m being too judgmental by thinking people who find their cousins hot is totally creepy and wrong, but this kind of thing has been making people feel weird for a long time.

You are needlessly attacking people and you are wrong about people feeling weird about it. For most of human history, most people have married a cousin. It is still common in many places. Half of US states will legally marry first cousins.

Perhaps some people don’t consider kissing cousins to be as stomach-churningly horrifying as say brother-sister or parent-child stuff, but uh, whatever the degree of separation, finding your family hot is still something you might want to keep between you and your analyst.

Maybe if you reword that and make it about interracial relationships, you'll see why this statement is hurtful.

Maybe her cousins aren't attractive? But some people have attractive cousins.

She was referring to this huffingtonpost.com bit.

To read about a real family that is hurt by attacks like this one, I recommend checking out this blog.

Read more »

Posted in: consanguineous,cousins,lack of equality harms,media,myths,persecution,prejudice,stigma

Some People Have Attractive Cousins

Sigh. When will "we" stop broadly condemning the relationships of others because of our own personal dislikes or ignorance? At thegloss.com I found a bit by Joanna Rafael with the headline "WTF? People Are Tweeting Their Incest Fantasies." We're talking about cousins.

Maybe I’m being too judgmental by thinking people who find their cousins hot is totally creepy and wrong, but this kind of thing has been making people feel weird for a long time.

You are needlessly attacking people and you are wrong about people feeling weird about it. For most of human history, most people have married a cousin. It is still common in many places. Half of US states will legally marry first cousins.

Perhaps some people don’t consider kissing cousins to be as stomach-churningly horrifying as say brother-sister or parent-child stuff, but uh, whatever the degree of separation, finding your family hot is still something you might want to keep between you and your analyst.

Maybe if you reword that and make it about interracial relationships, you'll see why this statement is hurtful.

Maybe her cousins aren't attractive? But some people have attractive cousins.

She was referring to this huffingtonpost.com bit.

To read about a real family that is hurt by attacks like this one, I recommend checking out this blog.

Read more »

Posted in: consanguineous,cousins,lack of equality harms,media,myths,persecution,prejudice,stigma

Frequently Asked Question: Is This Incest?

One frequently asked question is whether dating this person would be incest, or if doing this activity with a close relative is incest. The question is posed in different ways…

Is this incest?
Is it incest to date my in-law?
Is it incest to date my adopted sister?
Is it incest to date my adopted brother?
Is it incest to date my stepbrother?
Is it incest to date my stepsister?
Is it incest to date my uncle?
Is it incest to date my aunt?
Is it incest to date my cousin?
Is it incest to kiss my brother?
Is it incest to kiss my sister?
It it incest if my sibling and I have masturbated in front of each other?

The subtext is usually, “Is it wrong?”

First of all, regardless of laws, I see nothing wrong with any kind of physical affection, contact, or companionship between any consenting adults or minors who are close in age, as long as existing vows to others are not being violated. This includes dating, literally sleeping together, seeing each other nude, hand-holding, hugging, kissing (of any sort,) contact with genitals, intercourse, living together, marrying, etc. If these people are right for each other and want this with each other, then it shouldn’t be anyone else’s place to object.

As I always point out, I’m writing about consensual experimentation, exploration, affection, making out, sex, love, dating, partnering, living together, and marriage. I’m not talking about assault, molestation, abuse, or coercion. If someone forces themselves on you, that is wrong regardless of their relation to you.

What is incest? That depends on who you ask. The current definition at Wikipedia is…

sexual intercourse between close relatives that is usually illegal in the jurisdiction where it takes place and/or is conventionally considered a taboo. The term may apply to sexual activities between: individuals of close "blood relationship"; members of the same household; step relatives related by adoption or marriage; and members of the same clan or lineage.

As the Wikipedia entry notes, some people or laws include sex between relatives by marriage, or related by affinity rather than blood (consanguinity,) as incest. Contrary to popular misconception, actual sexual contact between close genetic relatives is not a crime everywhere. There are places where it is legal. Not all places that do have laws against consensual incest define incest the same way. For example, some places have laws that criminalize consensual sex between step-relations, while others don’t.

There are three basic kinds of relations that are commonly called incestuous…

Genetic… if people who are genetically related because they share at least one genetic parent or grandparent, it can be labeled as incest in the literal sense. Someone who shares one genetic grandparent is a half-cousin. Someone who shares two genetic grandparents is a full first cousin.

Legal… if people are legally related through adoption or share an adoptive parent, or have parents who are married to each other (such as stepsiblings), or even if one person is or has been a stepparent to the other, it can be considered incest even though there is no genetic relation.

Social… even if there is no legal or genetic connection, some people might call it “incestuous” if the lovers spent a lot of time around each other, perhaps in the same home, while one or both was growing up. And example of this would be if a woman dated her aunt’s ex-husband, who had been her uncle through marriage for part of her childhood.

So, something can be considered "incestuous" from a genetic, legal, or sociological perspective.

Some places include relationships where there is no genetic connection in their anti-incest laws. Also, there are many places where marriage between first cousins is legal (including some US states) and even common, but other places where such marriages are still denied. There are some US states where consensual incest between full siblings is not illegal, but all states still deny this as a freedom to marry.

Some people think of it as incest if two siblings from one family partner with two siblings from another family, even if both relationships are monogamous and do not swap. Children from the two relationships are “double cousins.”

Genetic relatives brought together into a sexual relationship through Genetic Sexual Attraction or without having grown up with each other, or without one having raised the other, may not have the sociological foundation that would make their relationship socially incestuous, but it may still be considered incest in the legal and genetic sense. This is why many people brought together through GSA do not see their relationship as incestuous, but others, including law enforcement, might.

Whether someone considers a relationship between stepsiblings incestuous might depend on what age they met or whether or not they lived together as children.

Rather than asking if their relationship is incestuous, there are two more relevant questions for someone to ask…

1. Is this illegal? Consensual relationships shouldn’t be illegal, but in some places, some are. This will usually have an impact on how the relationship is conducted and how the information about the relationship is shared. Lovers need to consider what precautions to take, and their family and friends also need to be savvy about the situation. Which takes me to the second question…

2. Will you accept us or reject us? This is more personal. Will this relationship be respected by those around us, or do we need to surround ourselves with people who truly love and respect us?

Lovers should not have to be concerned with the prejudices of outsiders, whether those prejudices are enshrined in law or not. If people are happy together, that’s all that should matter. How do they treat each other? Proximity, bonding, trust, love, privacy, mutual attraction, common backgrounds, and shared interests and outlooks on life can form the basis for a strong, happy, lasting spousal relationship or a mutually satisfying fling, or something somewhere between. Whether lovers share a custodial guardian or genetic parent, met through someone else’s marriage or relationship, or simply met one day while on a nice walk, what matters is what works for them. Is it incest? It shouldn’t matter.

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,consanguineous,FAQ,incest,love,stigma