The Invisible Asterisk

Sometimes, when someone writes (or says) that they support the freedom to marry or, marriage equality, or #Marriage4All, or “love is love” or something like “The sex lives of consenting adults is nobody else’s business.,” there is an invisible asterisk. You know, one of these ==> *

What might really be going on is this…

“Consenting adults should be free to marry each other.”*

*Unless you mean something I don’t like or think is disgusting, like polygamy, open marriage, or consensual adult incest.



I don’t do that. There is no asterisk in this statement…

I support the rights of an adult to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.

There is no asterisk after “adult.” An “adult” includes any person, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion.

“Any and all” means “any and all”. If an adult woman can vote, be Secretary of State (or Prime Minister, which we don't have in the US), serve as a Governor, be a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, sign contracts, enlist in the military, operate heavy machinery, be sentenced to life in prison or the death penalty (which we do have in many places in the US), and can consent to group sex with three cage fighters she just met, it seems to me an adult woman should also be free to have sex with and/or marry any consenting adult(s), even if that means another woman, or two women, or two men, or a woman and a man, or a married man (not hidden from his existing spouse), or her sister, whether an adopted sister, stepsister, half sister, or full blood sister. All of this goes for men, too, of course.

This basic right means all adults having the same right to not marry at all, and to divorce, and to be free of domestic violence. The basic freedom of association should mean that adults can share the entirely of love, sex, residence, and marriaqe, or any of those without the others, and any civil union or domestic partnership that is offered. That’s a funny thing called… equality. There is no good reason to deny equality. Now is the time to get it done.
So, do you support full marriage equality, or marriage “equality”*?

Read more »

Posted in: allies,freedom to marry,marriage equality,politicians,prejudice,solidarity,terminology

The Invisible Asterisk

Sometimes, when someone writes (or says) that they support the freedom to marry or, marriage equality, or #Marriage4All, or “love is love” or something like “The sex lives of consenting adults is nobody else’s business.,” there is an invisible asterisk. You know, one of these ==> *

What might really be going on is this…

“Consenting adults should be free to marry each other.”*

*Unless you mean something I don’t like or think is disgusting, like polygamy, open marriage, or consensual adult incest.



I don’t do that. There is no asterisk in this statement…

I support the rights of an adult to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.

There is no asterisk after “adult.” An “adult” includes any person, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion.

“Any and all” means “any and all”. If an adult woman can vote, be Secretary of State (or Prime Minister, which we don't have in the US), serve as a Governor, be a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, sign contracts, enlist in the military, operate heavy machinery, be sentenced to life in prison or the death penalty (which we do have in many places in the US), and can consent to group sex with three cage fighters she just met, it seems to me an adult woman should also be free to have sex with and/or marry any consenting adult(s), even if that means another woman, or two women, or two men, or a woman and a man, or a married man (not hidden from his existing spouse), or her sister, whether an adopted sister, stepsister, half sister, or full blood sister. All of this goes for men, too, of course.

This basic right means all adults having the same right to not marry at all, and to divorce, and to be free of domestic violence. The basic freedom of association should mean that adults can share the entirely of love, sex, residence, and marriaqe, or any of those without the others, and any civil union or domestic partnership that is offered. That’s a funny thing called… equality. There is no good reason to deny equality. Now is the time to get it done.
So, do you support full marriage equality, or marriage “equality”*?

Read more »

Posted in: allies,freedom to marry,marriage equality,politicians,prejudice,solidarity,terminology

Was He Prosecuted for Assault or Consensual Encounters?

Is Kentucky prosecuting consenting adults for having sex with each other? There's no way to know from what is reported in this article at cynthianademocrat.com. Beck Barnes has the blurb.

The Harrison County man who was indicted in August on three counts of incest has changed his plea.

Handsome Lee Tolliver, 45, will be sentenced Jan. 7 in Harrison Circuit Court following a pre-sentencing investigation and evaluation.

Tolliver entered a guilty plea to each of three charges of incest on Tuesday in Harrison Circuit Court.

The August indictment stated that Tolliver had sexual intercourse or deviate sexual intercourse with a person whom he knew to be his descendant.

Why not a "sexual assault" or "rape" charge? Without such a charge, this sounds like it could have been consensual. A 45-year-old man could easily have a "descendent" who is well into adulthood and fully consented. There isn't even any information on whether he was involved in the person's life while they were growing up. Consensual sex should not be a crime. Rape should be called what it is... rape. And it should be prosecuted as such.

Read more »

Posted in: consanguineous,courts,Kentucky,prosecution,terminology

Was He Prosecuted for Assault or Consensual Encounters?

Is Kentucky prosecuting consenting adults for having sex with each other? There's no way to know from what is reported in this article at cynthianademocrat.com. Beck Barnes has the blurb.

The Harrison County man who was indicted in August on three counts of incest has changed his plea.

Handsome Lee Tolliver, 45, will be sentenced Jan. 7 in Harrison Circuit Court following a pre-sentencing investigation and evaluation.

Tolliver entered a guilty plea to each of three charges of incest on Tuesday in Harrison Circuit Court.

The August indictment stated that Tolliver had sexual intercourse or deviate sexual intercourse with a person whom he knew to be his descendant.

Why not a "sexual assault" or "rape" charge? Without such a charge, this sounds like it could have been consensual. A 45-year-old man could easily have a "descendent" who is well into adulthood and fully consented. There isn't even any information on whether he was involved in the person's life while they were growing up. Consensual sex should not be a crime. Rape should be called what it is... rape. And it should be prosecuted as such.

Read more »

Posted in: consanguineous,courts,Kentucky,prosecution,terminology

False Alarm of the Day

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

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

Here is the submitted response to that comment...

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

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

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

Fight abuse. Support love.

Read more »

Posted in: consanguineous,incest,terminology

False Alarm of the Day

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

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

Here is the submitted response to that comment...

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

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

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

Fight abuse. Support love.

Read more »

Posted in: consanguineous,incest,terminology

We Get Letters

This blog welcomes comments and people are also encouraged to contact me via email. Here are a few recent comments I wanted to bring to your attention because they are remarkable.

Anonymous left a comment after the FAQ entry responding to the question, “How Common is Consensual Incest?”

I just want to say that my sister and I have been having regular sex for about 10 years now. We don't see anything wrong with it. If two people are attracted and in love then it should not matter if they are related.

I couldn’t agree more, other than making it clear that it doesn’t have to be limited to two.

Anonymous left a comment after “Ignorance Huts When it Comes to Consanguineous Impregnation”…

There is so much ignorance and blatantly false information out there regarding this subject. I believe that the 'danger' is nowhere near as bad as many people claim. I personally have chatted with some people who have done this, and they reported no problems. Love between people and the birth of a child are things to be celebrated, even when it's between consenting relatives.

Again, agreed. Here’s something I wrote more recently.



Anonymous left comment after “There’s a Difference Between Love and Abuse”…

There are other differences in terms, apart from "love and abuse," which are often misunderstood. My sister and I had an intimate relationship for 3 years whilst sharing an apartment attending the same out of town university. It was consensual, fulfilled in both our physical and emotional needs, and neither regret it. We do not come from a dysfunctional family, and only started making love after leaving school.

For us we never had "sex" and certainly never fu**ed each other. We made love to each other, making certain to prevent and unwanted pregnancy. For both of us it was the most natural thing to do.

Before making love the first time, we discussed and debated the issue at length. Eventually we realized that we regarded each other as the ideal partner, and that only societal prejudices and legal obstacles prevented us from doing what we regarded as natural and a logical step in our fraternal relationship. We decided to try it once, and should either have any qualms afterwards, that we would not do it again. As it happened, it was the start of a loving three year relationship, which only came to an end when we completed our studies and moved to different cities.

For us, it always will be "making love" and not having sex. Of course the "taboo" aspect was a factor, and being physically unified with your sister is the ultimate form of fraternal love. Siblings can never be closer.....

What may or may not have been the same Anonymous let a comment moments later after the entry “Why I Prefer the Term ‘Consanguineous.’”

The word "neocest" has been proposed for a sexual relationship between two people who are biologically related closer that the law allows, but who's relationship is consensual, both are adults, and who make love with each other (as opposed to having sex with each other). Google the word "neocest" and get a story with which I am intimately familiar....

“Neocest” certainly is shorter than consanguinamorous, although there’s nothing “new” about consensual incest.

A Not Safe For Work story I found when I did the search, which matches the comments, is here.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,brother-sister,children,consanguineous,love,pregnancy,siblings,terminology

We Get Letters

This blog welcomes comments and people are also encouraged to contact me via email. Here are a few recent comments I wanted to bring to your attention because they are remarkable.

Anonymous left a comment after the FAQ entry responding to the question, “How Common is Consensual Incest?”

I just want to say that my sister and I have been having regular sex for about 10 years now. We don't see anything wrong with it. If two people are attracted and in love then it should not matter if they are related.

I couldn’t agree more, other than making it clear that it doesn’t have to be limited to two.

Anonymous left a comment after “Ignorance Huts When it Comes to Consanguineous Impregnation”…

There is so much ignorance and blatantly false information out there regarding this subject. I believe that the 'danger' is nowhere near as bad as many people claim. I personally have chatted with some people who have done this, and they reported no problems. Love between people and the birth of a child are things to be celebrated, even when it's between consenting relatives.

Again, agreed. Here’s something I wrote more recently.



Anonymous left comment after “There’s a Difference Between Love and Abuse”…

There are other differences in terms, apart from "love and abuse," which are often misunderstood. My sister and I had an intimate relationship for 3 years whilst sharing an apartment attending the same out of town university. It was consensual, fulfilled in both our physical and emotional needs, and neither regret it. We do not come from a dysfunctional family, and only started making love after leaving school.

For us we never had "sex" and certainly never fu**ed each other. We made love to each other, making certain to prevent and unwanted pregnancy. For both of us it was the most natural thing to do.

Before making love the first time, we discussed and debated the issue at length. Eventually we realized that we regarded each other as the ideal partner, and that only societal prejudices and legal obstacles prevented us from doing what we regarded as natural and a logical step in our fraternal relationship. We decided to try it once, and should either have any qualms afterwards, that we would not do it again. As it happened, it was the start of a loving three year relationship, which only came to an end when we completed our studies and moved to different cities.

For us, it always will be "making love" and not having sex. Of course the "taboo" aspect was a factor, and being physically unified with your sister is the ultimate form of fraternal love. Siblings can never be closer.....

What may or may not have been the same Anonymous let a comment moments later after the entry “Why I Prefer the Term ‘Consanguineous.’”

The word "neocest" has been proposed for a sexual relationship between two people who are biologically related closer that the law allows, but who's relationship is consensual, both are adults, and who make love with each other (as opposed to having sex with each other). Google the word "neocest" and get a story with which I am intimately familiar....

“Neocest” certainly is shorter than consanguinamorous, although there’s nothing “new” about consensual incest.

A Not Safe For Work story I found when I did the search, which matches the comments, is here.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,brother-sister,children,consanguineous,love,pregnancy,siblings,terminology

Glossary Addition: Friend of Lily

I have made an addition to the Glossary:

Friend of Lily

Someone who is consanguinamorous or has experienced consanguinamory or consanguineous relationships or sex.

Usage: "After she was reunited with her long-lost brother, they fell in love. She loves where the flowers grow. She's a Friend of Lily."

This is a nod to Diane Rinella's character from her new fiction series.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,consanguineous,incest,terminology

Glossary Addition: Friend of Lily

I have made an addition to the Glossary:

Friend of Lily

Someone who is consanguinamorous or has experienced consanguinamory or consanguineous relationships or sex.

Usage: "After she was reunited with her long-lost brother, they fell in love. She loves where the flowers grow. She's a Friend of Lily."

This is a nod to Diane Rinella's character from her new fiction series.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,consanguineous,incest,terminology

Dan Savage Column Missing Very Important Details

This blog has covered Dan Savage's column before when it has dealt with father fantasies. I was bothered by this recent edition because of some important details that aren't provided.

No Acronym Seems To Yodel writes in...

I’m a straight guy in my early 30s with an amazing girlfriend of two years. A few months ago, I felt open enough to share my taboo fantasy: father-daughter incest. My GF, to my delight, not only understands the fantasy but enjoys participating in it!

As regular readers of this blog know, I prefer using the terms "consanguineous sex" and "consanguinamory" precisely for the problem here. "Incest" can mean very different things. The letter never makes it clear whether this fantasy is about consensual sex with an adult daughter, or whether it is assault or molestation of a child.

Quickly: I have zero interest in this kind of thing actually happening. I understand the kind of damage that sexual abuse can do and has done to many, many women, and I would never pursue something like this in real life.

That may imply that this is fantasizing about assault/molestation, but I can't be sure because people mistakenly (out of either ignorance or willful hate) insist that there's no such thing as consensual sex between a grown woman and her father. We know otherwise.

Now the problem: We’ve added the “wrinkle” of me talking to another man on the phone while my GF fellates me. The man — a stranger, someone we found online — has been led to believe that I am being fellated by my daughter while we speak. Of course, he can hear the noises associated with said activity while he and I are talking. We do not in any way lead these guys to believe that they have a chance to meet us. We want to enjoy our sexual fantasies, but we worry that we could be inadvertently encouraging someone to make their fantasies a reality. Any advice?

Of course nobody should ever be encouraged to assault or molest someone. There should be no worries about inspiring consensual sex between others.

Savage responded...

As for your problem, NASTY, most people with incest fantasies insist that they’re not turned on by the idea of having sex with their actual parents, siblings or children. Incest scenarios turn them on abstractly, but they have zero interest in their own siblings or parents or children specifically. That can’t be true for all incest fetishists — statistically speaking — but any incest fetishists who’re turned on by the thought of actually f---ing their sibs, parents or children would have a motive — or the good sense to lie.

The tone seems less than supportive of consanguinamory.

Does exploring something taboo through fantasy make someone likelier to go and do that thing in real life?

The evidence we’ve got about porn points to no.

Savage then backs up the statement with fact. You can read it yourself.

Advice columnists, journalists in general, and others need to make a clear distinction between consensual sex and abuse, just like every person should in their personal life.

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,consanguineous,father-daughter,incest,media,terminology

Dan Savage Column Missing Very Important Details

This blog has covered Dan Savage's column before when it has dealt with father fantasies. I was bothered by this recent edition because of some important details that aren't provided.

No Acronym Seems To Yodel writes in...

I’m a straight guy in my early 30s with an amazing girlfriend of two years. A few months ago, I felt open enough to share my taboo fantasy: father-daughter incest. My GF, to my delight, not only understands the fantasy but enjoys participating in it!

As regular readers of this blog know, I prefer using the terms "consanguineous sex" and "consanguinamory" precisely for the problem here. "Incest" can mean very different things. The letter never makes it clear whether this fantasy is about consensual sex with an adult daughter, or whether it is assault or molestation of a child.

Quickly: I have zero interest in this kind of thing actually happening. I understand the kind of damage that sexual abuse can do and has done to many, many women, and I would never pursue something like this in real life.

That may imply that this is fantasizing about assault/molestation, but I can't be sure because people mistakenly (out of either ignorance or willful hate) insist that there's no such thing as consensual sex between a grown woman and her father. We know otherwise.

Now the problem: We’ve added the “wrinkle” of me talking to another man on the phone while my GF fellates me. The man — a stranger, someone we found online — has been led to believe that I am being fellated by my daughter while we speak. Of course, he can hear the noises associated with said activity while he and I are talking. We do not in any way lead these guys to believe that they have a chance to meet us. We want to enjoy our sexual fantasies, but we worry that we could be inadvertently encouraging someone to make their fantasies a reality. Any advice?

Of course nobody should ever be encouraged to assault or molest someone. There should be no worries about inspiring consensual sex between others.

Savage responded...

As for your problem, NASTY, most people with incest fantasies insist that they’re not turned on by the idea of having sex with their actual parents, siblings or children. Incest scenarios turn them on abstractly, but they have zero interest in their own siblings or parents or children specifically. That can’t be true for all incest fetishists — statistically speaking — but any incest fetishists who’re turned on by the thought of actually f---ing their sibs, parents or children would have a motive — or the good sense to lie.

The tone seems less than supportive of consanguinamory.

Does exploring something taboo through fantasy make someone likelier to go and do that thing in real life?

The evidence we’ve got about porn points to no.

Savage then backs up the statement with fact. You can read it yourself.

Advice columnists, journalists in general, and others need to make a clear distinction between consensual sex and abuse, just like every person should in their personal life.

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,consanguineous,father-daughter,incest,media,terminology

No, Rhode Island Does Not Have Equality - Yet

Congratulations to all of the people in Rhode Island who will now be free to marry because the state has become the latest to adopt the limited same-gender freedom to marry!

Many of the statements from politicians and reports of this have said that Rhode Island adopted marriage equality, but this is not quite accurate. There are adults who are allowed to share their lives, including sex and raising children, able to live as spouses, who are still denied their right to marry.

For example, Rhode Island is the most progressive state when it come to consanguinamory. There are no restrictions on consanguineous sex between adults.

This means that people in consanguinamorous relationships are not breaking any law in Rhode Island. Since they are not breaking any law, since they are legally free to be together and raise children together if they want, why are they denied their right to marry?

There are people of all sexual orientations in polyamorous relationships who also continue to be denied their right to marry.

This is why full marriage equality is needed. An adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to marry any and all consenting adults, protected from prosecution, bullying, and discrimination. Equality "just for some" or in some ways, but not others, is not equality. Let's stand up for every adult's right to marry the person(s) she or he loves.

So, Rhode Island does not have full marriage equality... yet. But it is a state that easily could get there. Keep evolving, Rhode Island! There is no good reason to stop short of full marriage equality.

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,freedom to marry,law,LGBT,marriage equality,polygamy,Rhode Island,same-sex,terminology

No, Rhode Island Does Not Have Equality - Yet

Congratulations to all of the people in Rhode Island who will now be free to marry because the state has become the latest to adopt the limited same-gender freedom to marry!

Many of the statements from politicians and reports of this have said that Rhode Island adopted marriage equality, but this is not quite accurate. There are adults who are allowed to share their lives, including sex and raising children, able to live as spouses, who are still denied their right to marry.

For example, Rhode Island is the most progressive state when it come to consanguinamory. There are no restrictions on consanguineous sex between adults.

This means that people in consanguinamorous relationships are not breaking any law in Rhode Island. Since they are not breaking any law, since they are legally free to be together and raise children together if they want, why are they denied their right to marry?

There are people of all sexual orientations in polyamorous relationships who also continue to be denied their right to marry.

This is why full marriage equality is needed. An adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to marry any and all consenting adults, protected from prosecution, bullying, and discrimination. Equality "just for some" or in some ways, but not others, is not equality. Let's stand up for every adult's right to marry the person(s) she or he loves.

So, Rhode Island does not have full marriage equality... yet. But it is a state that easily could get there. Keep evolving, Rhode Island! There is no good reason to stop short of full marriage equality.

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,freedom to marry,law,LGBT,marriage equality,polygamy,Rhode Island,same-sex,terminology

Freedom to Marry Doesn't Always Mean Marriage Equality

[I'm bumping up this entry because Maryland finally has the limited same-gender freedom to marry and I see many reports about how it is "marriage equality." What you see below was originally posted on February 13, 2011. Again, Maryland now has the limited same-gender freedom to marry as of TODAY!]

Maryland is one of the US states currently debating the implementation of the freedom to same-sex marriage. Some people refer to this as marriage equality, as seen in this blog...

So, the Maryland Senate is discussing a bill for marriage equality.

Or here at this Patch article, "Councilman Testifies for Marriage Equality"...

"Right now, because marriage equality is already in effect just down the road in the District of Columbia, countless dollars are being diverted away from Maryland, to Washington D.C.'s hotels, restaurants, ballrooms, flourists [stet], caterers, tailors -- not to mention all the attorneys, accountants, financial planners, and others who provide services to couples after they are married. Right now, many of our businesses are losing a critical sector of clientele, and in the process, we are not preventing anyone who wants to get married from doing so. So many of our businesses are missing out on a tremendous opportunity, because of a legal roadblock that - years from now - will seem like an antiquated notion."

And believe it or not, you can also see an example of this at RationalSkepticism.org...

It looks like Maryland is going to be the next state to offer full marriage equality for its citizens.

I disagree with this phrasing. Full marriage equality would mean that all marriages are legal and recognized; that any adult can marry any consenting adult(s). It's not equality if it is only "equality for some." It will be great if Maryland will move towards full marriage equality by adding another freedom to marry; the same-sex freedom to marry. But I do make the distinction between a freedom to marry, such as the right to same-sex marriage or the right to consanguineous marriage, and when we will have all freedoms to marry; full marriage equality. Let's keep the momentum going!

Read more »

Posted in: freedom to marry,law,marriage equality,Maryland,media,politicians,terminology

Freedom to Marry Doesn't Always Mean Marriage Equality

[I'm bumping up this entry because Maryland finally has the limited same-gender freedom to marry and I see many reports about how it is "marriage equality." What you see below was originally posted on February 13, 2011. Again, Maryland now has the limited same-gender freedom to marry as of TODAY!]

Maryland is one of the US states currently debating the implementation of the freedom to same-sex marriage. Some people refer to this as marriage equality, as seen in this blog...

So, the Maryland Senate is discussing a bill for marriage equality.

Or here at this Patch article, "Councilman Testifies for Marriage Equality"...

"Right now, because marriage equality is already in effect just down the road in the District of Columbia, countless dollars are being diverted away from Maryland, to Washington D.C.'s hotels, restaurants, ballrooms, flourists [stet], caterers, tailors -- not to mention all the attorneys, accountants, financial planners, and others who provide services to couples after they are married. Right now, many of our businesses are losing a critical sector of clientele, and in the process, we are not preventing anyone who wants to get married from doing so. So many of our businesses are missing out on a tremendous opportunity, because of a legal roadblock that - years from now - will seem like an antiquated notion."

And believe it or not, you can also see an example of this at RationalSkepticism.org...

It looks like Maryland is going to be the next state to offer full marriage equality for its citizens.

I disagree with this phrasing. Full marriage equality would mean that all marriages are legal and recognized; that any adult can marry any consenting adult(s). It's not equality if it is only "equality for some." It will be great if Maryland will move towards full marriage equality by adding another freedom to marry; the same-sex freedom to marry. But I do make the distinction between a freedom to marry, such as the right to same-sex marriage or the right to consanguineous marriage, and when we will have all freedoms to marry; full marriage equality. Let's keep the momentum going!

Read more »

Posted in: freedom to marry,law,marriage equality,Maryland,media,politicians,terminology

Another News Blurb Without Enough Information

I need to call more attention to examples of news reports that do contain enough information to get an idea of what is alleged to have happened in criminal cases. It can be done without compromising the identity of crime victims. When reports or "incest" are vague because law enforcement is not releasing enough information and newsrooms aren't asking enough questions before they publish items, we have no way of knowing if what is alleged to have happened was a matter of assault or consensual sex. Those are two very different things, and yet in many places, the latter is still treated as a criminal matter even though it shouldn't be.

The latest example I have is this blurb from wivb.com in Wellsville, New York by Liz Reiman...

A 16-year-boy of Wellsville was arrested Saturday around 4:30a.m. Sunday.

The youth was charged with Incest and was committed to the Allegany County Jail on $5,000 bail.

The 16-year-old, whose name has not been released,  is due back in Wellsville Village Court on January 15th at 1p.m.

That's it. A charge of "incest," without hearing a degree attached, doesn't tell us much at all. If this was a matter of assault, why isn't their a charge of assault or rape? If this was a matter of consensual sex between minors close in age (for example, with his 14-year-old niece, nephew, brother, or sister), and was reported by some freaked out family member or neighbor, then it is a far different matter than if you have, say, a 16-year-old assaulting an 8-year-old, but both could call under being "charged with Incest."

Read more »

Posted in: consanguineous,incest,law,media,New York,terminology

Another News Blurb Without Enough Information

I need to call more attention to examples of news reports that do contain enough information to get an idea of what is alleged to have happened in criminal cases. It can be done without compromising the identity of crime victims. When reports or "incest" are vague because law enforcement is not releasing enough information and newsrooms aren't asking enough questions before they publish items, we have no way of knowing if what is alleged to have happened was a matter of assault or consensual sex. Those are two very different things, and yet in many places, the latter is still treated as a criminal matter even though it shouldn't be.

The latest example I have is this blurb from wivb.com in Wellsville, New York by Liz Reiman...

A 16-year-boy of Wellsville was arrested Saturday around 4:30a.m. Sunday.

The youth was charged with Incest and was committed to the Allegany County Jail on $5,000 bail.

The 16-year-old, whose name has not been released,  is due back in Wellsville Village Court on January 15th at 1p.m.

That's it. A charge of "incest," without hearing a degree attached, doesn't tell us much at all. If this was a matter of assault, why isn't their a charge of assault or rape? If this was a matter of consensual sex between minors close in age (for example, with his 14-year-old niece, nephew, brother, or sister), and was reported by some freaked out family member or neighbor, then it is a far different matter than if you have, say, a 16-year-old assaulting an 8-year-old, but both could call under being "charged with Incest."

Read more »

Posted in: consanguineous,incest,law,media,New York,terminology

An Addition to the Glossary: Consanguinamorous

I am bumping up this entry.

I have made some minor changes to the Glossary, and added a couple of terms. Since this blog began, I have favored the phrase “consanguineous sex” over the word incest to describe consensual sex between close relatives. This has meant writing “consanguineous couples” as opposed to “incestuous couples.”

I now think a better word is the word consanguinamorous. It’s a long word, but it may be useful in describing love or eroticism between close relatives. It implies the inclusion of sexuality, but that may not be so. Consanguineous sex can be expected between those who practice consanguinamory; couples, triads, or quads who are consanguinamorous. Some people would call this “intrafamilial sex” or “hyperendogamy.”

Please note that as always, this is referring to consensual sex, not to sexual assault, rape, statutory rape, child rape, or child molestation.

Read more »

Posted in: consanguineous,terminology