A Polyamorous Woman Denied Her Right to Marry

By my count, this is the twenty-ninth ongoing relationship I've covered through exclusive interviews in which the lovers are denied the freedom to be open about their love and are denied their fundamental right to marry.

Zoey is a beautiful young woman, someone you might give a nod and smile to if you saw her shopping in your local store. If you want to see her NOT SAFE FOR WORK Tumblr, you can find it here.


Read the interview below and ask yourself if there is one good reason her right to love the adults she does should be denied.


*****


FULL MARRIAGE EQUALITY: Describe your background.

Zoey: I am almost 23. I am in a type of polyamory/open relationship with my girlfriend Tess (almost 25) and my boyfriend Jack (almost 24). These are our fake names used for anonymous purposes only of course.


FME: Are you legally married or have you ever been legally married?

No, I am not married. I have not ever been married either.


FME: How would you describe your sexual orientation... are you heterosexual, bisexual, what?

I am bisexual.


FME: You currently live with…?

My boyfriend Jack, Girlfriend Tess, our 3 kids, Jack’s mother and his younger sister.


FME: Please describe your polyamorous relationship.

Neither I nor Tess get jealous if we have one-on-one time with Jack. But, there is always time for some group play. Jack even prefers if all three of us make love together. As for how things work, it’s simple, really. Jack has the job in the relationship and Tess and I watch the kids - for now. I’ve been trying to get a job as well so that I can help him with the bills. It’s seems unfair to me that he has to support the 6 of us by himself.


FME: How did this polycule form? Was it a sudden event or a gradual process? Was there a clear initiator?

Originally, I met Jack when we were both working at a haunted house. At the time I was currently in a monogamous relationship with a guy that I used to go to school with, who was also working at the same place but in a different part of the attraction. Jack was very flirty and silly. I clicked with him instantly. He told me a little bit about himself and how he had kids and a girlfriend that was bisexual. I confessed to him that I was also bisexual. We became close friends.

After the season was over I went back to my life with my boyfriend. A lot of drama started between me and my boyfriend’s mother. She found out that I was bisexual because she googled my name. What she didn’t know was that it was a different ‘Zoey’ that she found but, she’s the kind of person where once her mind was set there was no changing it. She was disgusted with me and forced my boyfriend to kick me out. I ended up moving in with my dad and that’s when I got back in touch with Jack. I had a friend request from him on my Facebook. We talked for about a month then he invited me over one random September day. That was when everything fell into place. We all clicked and I’ll admit, it was a sudden occurrence. But, it’s one that I will never regret or forget.


FME: Describe your relationship now.

Now our relationship is more refined and unrevealed except the occasional hugs and kisses but at night when our kids are asleep it’s still very sexual and romantic.

In the aspect of the 3 children that are in our relationship, I am basically a 'step-mother' to Tess's two kids and she is the 'step-mother' to my son. Jack is simply daddy to all of them. It works out wonderfully. In the future Jack and I would like to have more kids. Tess is physically unable to birth any more children so she has been thinking about adoption, and so have I. We all have always wanted a big family and every child deserves a home and a loving family that they can call their own. But, because of our current governmental standing... I don't know how well that would work, if at all.


FME: What are the sleeping arrangements? Is there a schedule?

Tess sleeps by the wall, Jack is in the middle and I sleep on the outside. We share a King sized bed. The only schedules that we follow are Jack’s work schedule and the schedule of our kids. Only one of them is old enough for school and the other two is the job of us stay-at-home mammas.


FME: What kind of rules/agreements for maintaining the relationship are there?

There’s really no rules. We all get along so well.


FME: What is your past experience with polyamory, if any?

Until this relationship that I’m currently in, I had no prior experience. And, I will admit that in the beginning Tess and I had our fair share of jealousy. She wasn’t used to a polyamory relationship either.


FME: Who are you out to? How were you outed? What has been the reaction by family, friends, neighbors, coworkers, random strangers, etc.?

Random strangers are funny. They give us the strangest looks when we’re out together. Me, Tess and Jack have gotten to the point where we don’t care about their looks or we just tell them to f--- off! That’s only if they are being rude though. For everyone else I just posted a status update on Facebook. Although, with my mother I sent a private message. At first she did not accept as easily as the rest but, after some time and my son (her grandson) she was much more accepting.


FME: Is there anything you've had to do to hide the nature of your relationship from anyone? Having to hide can be a lot of trouble. Are there other disadvantages to being in a relationship like this? Conversely, do you think polyamorous relationships have some advantages?

The only people we’ve had to hide from is the government. But, the reason to that is obvious. And, in the sexual aspect there is an advantage for Jack. If one of us is on our period then he can play around with the other. His only disadvantage is when we’re both on our period at the same time.


FME: What do you want to say to people who disapprove of your relationship, or disapprove of anyone having this kind of relationship? What's your reply to those who would say that women are victimized by a relationship like this?

I would say that they are wrong! We are not victimized by our relationship. The only way that I would see us as a ‘victim’ is if Jack was abusive. Which he is NOT!


FME: Can you think of anything that would make relationships like this inherently wrong?

I can’t think of anything wrong with my relationship. Unless it’s abusive, like I have stated above.


FME: If you could have a legal polyamorous marriage, and that included protections against discrimination, harassment, etc., would you? Or even if you do not want a legal polyamorous marriage, do you see a need for protections against discrimination?

Yes, we’ve all already discussed marriage. We ALL want to be united. Both Tess and I have already stated that if we were to get married we would take Jacks last name. And, if we ever decided not to get married for whatever reason then protection against discrimination would be wonderful.


FME: What advice do you have for someone who thinks they may be polyamorous or may want to enter into a polyamorous relationship?

Make sure that the people that will be involved in the polyamorous relationship get along without any type of jealousy. Major conflicts would be good to avoid but, there’s no avoiding tiny little conflicts. Every relationship, whether it be polyamorous, monogamous, or otherwise will have some type of little conflicts. It’s unavoidable.


FME: What advice do you have for family members and friends who are having trouble coming to grips with the reality of their family member or friend being polyamorous?

If you need any other kind of advice you can contact us online at our blog. If you would like to talk to a specific person then specify the name with your message please.


FME: Do you know/meet up with other polyamorous families?

No, we do not, but I think it would be fun to be able to hang out with other like-minded families.


FME: Any plans for the future?

As of now, our only plan is to keep living life happy. The way we are now with no interruptions from the government trying to break us apart. If we are ever able to get married then that would be our next future plan.


FME: Anything else you want to add?

If you would like to talk to us personally you may do so at our blog. Just be sure to specify whom you are talking too in your message.  All three of us run the blog together and if you did not specify it can be confusing.

*****

Here is their NOT SAFE FOR WORK Tumblr blog:
http://ourtriplesexstory.tumblr.com/

There you have it. Consenting adults who aren't hurting anyone, but who have to hide their love, denied their right to marry.

Why should they be denied their rights? There’s no good reason.We need to recognize that all adults should be free to be with any and all consenting adults as they mutually consent, and part of doing that is adopting relationship rights for all, including full marriage equality sooner rather than later. People are being hurt because of a denial of their basic human rights to love each other freely.

You can read other interviews I have done here.

If you are in a relationship like this and are looking for help or others you can talk with, read this.

Thank you to Zoey for doing this interview!

Read more »

Posted in: bisexual,children,coming out,family reaction,freedom to marry,lack of equality harms,love,open,polyamory,polygamy,polygyny,triads

A Pansexual Woman Denied Her Rights

By my count, this is the twenty-seventh ongoing relationship I've covered through exclusive interviews in which the lovers are denied the freedom to be open about their love and are denied their fundamental right to marry. This one is with a beautiful Anonymous Woman who is polyamorous and consanguinamorous.

Read the interview below and ask yourself if there is one good reason her right to love the adults she does should be denied. There is some mildly graphic description of sexual activity.


*****


FULL MARRIAGE EQUALITY: Describe your background.

Anonymous Woman: I work in the film and television inudstry. I have a degree in Cinematic Arts. I currently homeschool a few children that aren't mine. I would say I'm from a middle to upper class background. My dad is from Europe and my mom is from Central America. My brother is my only sibling. I'm 37, and fairly pansexual, meaning I don't really care what gender someone is. I am tall and fit.



FME: Are you married or have you ever been married?

I have never been married and have no children. I want to have kids.


FME: You currently live with…?

Currently, I live in my parents' house. I do not live with my parents because they decided to move to another city, but wanted to keep the house in the family not sell it.


FME: How would you describe your relationship orientation?

Right now, what I have is a relationship with three people, a trans male-to-female girlfriend, my brother, and my sister in law. We have all been together a couple of times and they have all been with each other. It is difficult to call it an actual polyamory relationship because except for my brother and sister-in-law we don't live in the same cities. I am not saying I want or expect this to be the relationship I have forever. I do think given my pansexual orientation and need for affection that a polyamorous relationship of some type would be best. I am really pansexual. I like both genders and I like male-to-female transsexuals.


FME: What kind of relationship did you and your brother have while growing up?

My brother and I never had sex while growing up. I did spy on his liaisons with girlfriends a little bit. But not until the last couple of years did we have a sexual relationship. We apparently both had these feelings about each other but never acted on them. Who initiated the triad was his wife, however, not him and not me.

FME: How did that happen?

It basically started one night when they were over at my old apartment because they were in town and needed some alone time, and my parents' house was crowded. I was spying on them having sex and I was naked and they caught me masturbating to them. We were somewhat embarrassed and apologized and laughed and everything being awkward, and then rather suddenly my sister in law drops to her knees and begins to perform oral sex on me. That is how it all started.

The way that sort of worked was that my brother first got involved with us just watching. But after a while we just started playing with each other as part of the process, and one thing lead to another and we were f---ing each other that same night.

I always was attracted to my brother, and frequently said if he wasn't married and wasn't my brother I'd probably want to be his girlfriend. But I had never really thought about acting on it.

FME: Describe your relationship now. Are you siblings, boyfriend/girlfriend? What about the sex?

It is complicated. I don't know how to describe it. It is some of the best sex I ever had. It can be kinky but it's not always kinky. Except for that little detail about me having sex with my brother, it would probably be a lot less kinky. We don't have sex all the time. Maybe only 5 or 6 of these situations a year and usually not all four or us at the same time. I know that people will assume we're meeting every weekend and doing absolutely bizarre things but it's not like that. We see each other and interact more as family than as any other role. Even with my girfriend it has become less unbridled sex and more planning to have a family.

FME: Does anyone in your life know the full, true nature/history of your relationship and how did they find out? How have they reacted?

The polyamorous relationship is known about by some friends but is a complete secret to my parents. Their oldest daughter picked up that there is an occasional sexual relationship between me and her mother. The other kids do not now anything. The whole family understands I am bisexual. My parents are Catholic, and while they probably would rather see me meet a guy, they accepted that part of me. I used to be a drug addict do all kinds of illegal [stuff]. They managed to get me into recovery, and have been supportive of anything which is a legitimate lifestyle. They dread me falling back to being an addict more than any sexual orientation, and as long as I'm not selling myself they are okay with it. However, I do not think they would ever accept my brother and I as lovers.

FME: Having to hide the full nature of your relationship from some people can be a disadvantage. Can you describe how that has been? Are there any other disadvantages? Conversely, do you think consanguineous relationships have some advantages and some things better than unrelated lovers?

Here is a big advantage: several of us get to have several needs of ours satisified, including my girlfriend who, frankly, has a problem dealing with men but nonetheless has some attraction to them. We're all somewhat bisexual. We all love each other. It is safe... no diseases, no risks of violence, nothing like you would risk dating people you really don't know.


FME: Is this a closed group?

We are not closed, we are open to finding other people and are actually trying to do it, especially my girlfriend and I.

FME: Any plans for the future?

I made a decision for biological clock reasons to try to have a baby. My girfriend has offered to be the legal second parent for the kid and to use my brother as the sperm donor. There is the downside of slightly higher chances for birth defects but there is also a risk in that of waiting until my 40's or whenever I found a boyfriend. We're going to have a legal agreement drawn up stating that we are doing this so we cannot be charged with incest. There's laws against us f---ing each other but none against using a sibling for a sperm donor. An advantage of this is, we know where the DNA is coming from, in case a medical condition develops. And as well, when the question comes about as to how I had a baby artificially, we thought that having the "true parent" being her uncle than a total stranger would go over better.


FME: What do you want to say to people who disapprove of your relationship, or disapprove of anyone having this kind of relationship?

Well, we're all well into adulthood and we all love each other. It is safe, and it is an extension of our love for one another. This is something that developed in adulthood. We're all over 35. It meets needs we have as bisexual people better than going out and trying to swing.


FME: What's your reply to those who would say that this is one of you preying on the other (and that you can’t truly consent?)

What can't we consent to? I'm not being blackmailed or extorted. I'm not being raped. I can say no. In fact, shortly after this first happened I DID say no. But I decided I didn't want to say no anymore.


FME: Aside from the law, which I think is ridiculous, can you think of anything that would make relationships like this inherently wrong?

Yeah, if there was force or compulsion of any kind used in it.


FME: If you could get legally married, and that included protections against discrimination, harassment, etc., would you? Or is this a different kind of relationship than that?

That's complicated. Firstly, I'm a political libertarian and don't believe the state should be involved in marriage. Then if we did do that we'd have to consider my parents and my brother's kids. We aren't anywhere near that kind of a decision though even if it were possible.


FME: What advice do you have for family members and friends who think or know that relatives they know are having these feelings for each other?

Just don't try and shame people and make them feel guilty.


*****


There you have it. Consenting adults who aren't hurting anyone, but who have to hide their love.

Why should they be denied their rights? There’s no good reason.We need to recognize that all adults should be free to be with any and all consenting adults as they mutually consent, and part of doing that is adopting relationship rights for all, including full marriage equality sooner rather than later. People are being hurt because of a denial of their basic human rights to love each other freely.

You can read other interviews I have done here.

If you are in a relationship like this and are looking for help or others you can talk with, read this.

If you are a family member or friend of someone who is in or may be in such a relationship, please read this.

Thank you to Anonymous Woman for doing this interview!

Read more »

Posted in: bisexual,brother-sister,consanguineous,family reaction,LGBT,love,open,PCM,polyamory,pregnancy,same-sex,siblings,triads

Bisexual and Polyamorous

Alexandra Caldwell, who is bisexual and polyamorous, wrote a great piece on polyamory and how it is painted by others, including some in the LGBT community. This was published in July 2010. How does it hold up today, with awareness of polyamory rising?

While being bisexual, lesbian or gay seem to be slowly gaining acceptance in “mainstream” America, there is one part of my life that still begets misunderstanding or hostility from even those within the LGBT community.

It is a shame when people from a community that has been persecuted stand by and allow others to be persecuted, or even join in the persecution. One example of this is when some of those seeking same-sex marriage throw people seeking polygamy or consanguineous marriage under the bus.

She writes about her awakening...

I hadn’t thought of people loving more than one person at the same time, everyone knowing about it and being okay with it. But when my husband mentioned it, it seemed both so natural and obvious that I couldn’t believe I hadn’t thought of it before.

Also, the timing seemed right. I had just figured out that I wanted to kiss girls. Initially, it had seemed I’d only had two choices: I could stay married and try to ignore this new, huge part of me or I could get divorced so I could exclusively pursue relationships with women. All of a sudden there was an appealing option three: I remain married AND I date girls - either together with my husband or separately. For me, the last choice was by far the best option.

Happiness all around instead the misery of fighting and divorce. Isn’t that better?

Polyamory is not spouse-swapping or about casual, fleeting sexual encounters. It is an actual relationship, just like any other romantic relationship, just with more than one person. These relationships take work and commitment, and you have to feed the relationship - all branches of it - just as you have to with any successful relationship. It is not about one-night stands or casual threesomes or swinging.

A polyamorous couple, triad, or quad may or may not engage in those things too.

That I am polyamorous does not mean that I am easy.

Do you see that, bigots?

Polyamory does not threaten monogamous relationships - for either straight, gay, lesbian or bisexual relationships. We in the LGBT community validly argue that our homosexual relationships (and our desire for marriage) do not endanger heterosexual relationships and marriages. They are separate but the same - we all are just two people who love each other and want to share our lives together. The same goes for polyamory - we are just a group of people in various combinations who love each other and want to share our lives together.

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Read more »

Posted in: bisexual,polyamory,prejudice,solidarity,triads

Polyamory Is Not Just For Couples

Angi Becker Stevens writes at huffingtonpost.com to clear up a misunderstand about polyamorous relationships...

Over the past few years, polyamory has become a more widely known term and practice. And perhaps inevitably, certain misconceptions and misunderstandings about what "polyamory" means have become widespread as well.

That's for sure. There are so many different ways polyamory can be experienced, and people often base their perception, or mistaken understanding, on one example. 

It would be unfortunately difficult to say which among these misunderstandings is the most common, or the most hurtful to polyamorous folks. But there's one in particular that I'd like to discuss: the idea that "polyamory" means "committed couple who have casual partners on the side."

That's just one of many ways polyamory can be experienced.

Many of us have deeply committed relationships with more than one partner, with no hierarchy among them and no core "couple" at the heart of it all. To me, this notion that there must be one more important relationship, one true love, feels a lot like people looking at same-sex couples and thinking that one person must be the "man" in the relationship and the other must be the "woman." After all, both of these misunderstandings result from people trying to graft their normative conceptions of love and relationships onto people who are partnering in non-normative ways. It seems that it is somewhat easy for many people to acknowledge that humans are capable of loving one person and still enjoying sex with others (assuming, of course, that the terms of their relationship make such behavior acceptable). But it is much harder for people to think outside the fairy-tale notion of "the one" and imagine that it might be possible to actually romantically love more than one person simultaneously. 

She goes on to explain the problems this can cause and how people can avoid insulting polyamorous people. It is a very good thing to read.

Read more »

Posted in: family reaction,myths,open,polyamory,quads,swinging,triads

Polyamory Is Not Just For Couples

Angi Becker Stevens writes at huffingtonpost.com to clear up a misunderstand about polyamorous relationships...

Over the past few years, polyamory has become a more widely known term and practice. And perhaps inevitably, certain misconceptions and misunderstandings about what "polyamory" means have become widespread as well.

That's for sure. There are so many different ways polyamory can be experienced, and people often base their perception, or mistaken understanding, on one example. 

It would be unfortunately difficult to say which among these misunderstandings is the most common, or the most hurtful to polyamorous folks. But there's one in particular that I'd like to discuss: the idea that "polyamory" means "committed couple who have casual partners on the side."

That's just one of many ways polyamory can be experienced.

Many of us have deeply committed relationships with more than one partner, with no hierarchy among them and no core "couple" at the heart of it all. To me, this notion that there must be one more important relationship, one true love, feels a lot like people looking at same-sex couples and thinking that one person must be the "man" in the relationship and the other must be the "woman." After all, both of these misunderstandings result from people trying to graft their normative conceptions of love and relationships onto people who are partnering in non-normative ways. It seems that it is somewhat easy for many people to acknowledge that humans are capable of loving one person and still enjoying sex with others (assuming, of course, that the terms of their relationship make such behavior acceptable). But it is much harder for people to think outside the fairy-tale notion of "the one" and imagine that it might be possible to actually romantically love more than one person simultaneously. 

She goes on to explain the problems this can cause and how people can avoid insulting polyamorous people. It is a very good thing to read.

Read more »

Posted in: family reaction,myths,open,polyamory,quads,swinging,triads

Where Are They Now?

Some people, while not themselves involved in consanguinamory, are turned on by erotica with an incest theme. Some people who are, or have been, involved in consanguinamory want nothing to do interacting with or providing masturbation material for the first group. This causes friction when these two groups intersect at incest websites. (As always, I’m referring to adult consensual sex.) Some discussion forums have deliberately maintained a policy prohibiting pornographic images or videos. Some of the antiporn sentiment within the consanguinamory community mirrors a general population antiporn sentiment that adult videos and images aren’t good representations of, or are even antithetical to, the reality of intimacy and lovemaking.

I'm not here to take sides on that issue. I try to keep this blog a safe and welcoming place to visit for all.

The rest of this entry is about a specific set of such explicit adult incest videos that have been widely circulated, as I have a curiosity about the participants. Click to read more only if you want to read or comment on this subject. [I am bumping up this entry because it is still relevant.]


As the title says, “Where are they now?” Where are the people who are in these videos, which are presented as real, rather than fictional or fantasy?

The series to which I can refer can be described as the “Incest Taboo” series, although probably many series have taken some form of that title. At least one of these has a "World Net, Inc." copyright. Last I checked, the videos were being sold at a US-based website associated with a paid-subscription forum, with two short previews of each video provided for free. The videos have been at various video-tube websites for free streaming, probably to the irritation of those selling the videos, who presumably made many of them and were first to “release” all of them.

A few examples of the videos…

Incest Taboo 1: Alex, Brandy, Cathy. They claim to be brother, sister, and sister, and I can believe it. I could also believe it if they got high right before they started recording (just a hunch I got.) They did their own camera work. This could have been made in 2001 or before.

Incest Taboo 4: Michael and Lynn. They claim to be brother and sister, and I can believe it. They also did their own camera work.

Incest Taboo 5: Barbara and Jason. They claim to be mother and son, and have identical hair color. They have someone else doing the camera work.

Some of the subsequent videos have someone from the “Incest Taboo” site interviewing the participants before the sex, during which the interviewers do the camera work. One video has a man who has difficulty getting and keeping and erection, at least in front of the cameras and watchers. That's hardly a mark of professional performer.

There are several reasons I have to wonder “Where are these people now?" Most of the participants of the videos I actually saw sound like they are from the US and perhaps Canada, where consensual adult sex between siblings and between parents and children is still illegal in most places, and subject to hateful prejudice and discrimination even where not subject to prosecution. As stupid as any laws against consensual sex are, it still seems risky to appear on video doing something that is illegal in so many places. Then again, prosecuting them, at least in the US, would be a state/local matter, and it would be difficult to prove where the “crime” actually took place, and thus proving that it took place in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction.

As I ask in the interviews I have done, I’m curious about how their relationships have fit in to the rest of their lives. What effects, if any, the videos have had on their lives? Are they still active with each other? Were any contacted by law enforcement? Did neighbors or other family members see the videos and say anything to them? One claimed brother and sister are married to other people, who apparently don’t know what they are doing with each other (cheating.) Did the spouses ever find out?

Many people are taking video of themselves having sex now, and even sharing it with the world. It’s another thing, though, for someone involved in consanguinamory to put it on video for the world to see, especially with strangers in the room.

So while I would expect they used pseudonyms in the videos, I have to wonder, where are you now, Alex, Brandy, Cathy (Incest Taboo 1,) Michael and Lynn (4), Barbara and Jason (5), Tom and Marie (6), Dre and Jessica (9), Tabitha and Brian (12), Gabe and Gretchen (13), Bobby and Jill (14), Rick and Tabitha (16) and the rest?

Anyone who has appeared in those videos or others that are presented as actual consanguinamory and can answer my questions (and anyone else for that matter), can contact me at fullmarriageequality at yahoo dot com or on Facebook.

Read more »

Posted in: brother-sister,cheating,coming out,consanguineous,father-daughter,incest,media,mother-son,polyamory,siblings,triads

Where Are They Now?

Some people, while not themselves involved in consanguinamory, are turned on by erotica with an incest theme. Some people who are, or have been, involved in consanguinamory want nothing to do interacting with or providing masturbation material for the first group. This causes friction when these two groups intersect at incest websites. (As always, I’m referring to adult consensual sex.) Some discussion forums have deliberately maintained a policy prohibiting pornographic images or videos. Some of the antiporn sentiment within the consanguinamory community mirrors a general population antiporn sentiment that adult videos and images aren’t good representations of, or are even antithetical to, the reality of intimacy and lovemaking.

I'm not here to take sides on that issue. I try to keep this blog a safe and welcoming place to visit for all.

The rest of this entry is about a specific set of such explicit adult incest videos that have been widely circulated, as I have a curiosity about the participants. Click to read more only if you want to read or comment on this subject. [I am bumping up this entry because it is still relevant.]


As the title says, “Where are they now?” Where are the people who are in these videos, which are presented as real, rather than fictional or fantasy?

The series to which I can refer can be described as the “Incest Taboo” series, although probably many series have taken some form of that title. At least one of these has a "World Net, Inc." copyright. Last I checked, the videos were being sold at a US-based website associated with a paid-subscription forum, with two short previews of each video provided for free. The videos have been at various video-tube websites for free streaming, probably to the irritation of those selling the videos, who presumably made many of them and were first to “release” all of them.

A few examples of the videos…

Incest Taboo 1: Alex, Brandy, Cathy. They claim to be brother, sister, and sister, and I can believe it. I could also believe it if they got high right before they started recording (just a hunch I got.) They did their own camera work. This could have been made in 2001 or before.

Incest Taboo 4: Michael and Lynn. They claim to be brother and sister, and I can believe it. They also did their own camera work.

Incest Taboo 5: Barbara and Jason. They claim to be mother and son, and have identical hair color. They have someone else doing the camera work.

Some of the subsequent videos have someone from the “Incest Taboo” site interviewing the participants before the sex, during which the interviewers do the camera work. One video has a man who has difficulty getting and keeping and erection, at least in front of the cameras and watchers. That's hardly a mark of professional performer.

There are several reasons I have to wonder “Where are these people now?" Most of the participants of the videos I actually saw sound like they are from the US and perhaps Canada, where consensual adult sex between siblings and between parents and children is still illegal in most places, and subject to hateful prejudice and discrimination even where not subject to prosecution. As stupid as any laws against consensual sex are, it still seems risky to appear on video doing something that is illegal in so many places. Then again, prosecuting them, at least in the US, would be a state/local matter, and it would be difficult to prove where the “crime” actually took place, and thus proving that it took place in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction.

As I ask in the interviews I have done, I’m curious about how their relationships have fit in to the rest of their lives. What effects, if any, the videos have had on their lives? Are they still active with each other? Were any contacted by law enforcement? Did neighbors or other family members see the videos and say anything to them? One claimed brother and sister are married to other people, who apparently don’t know what they are doing with each other (cheating.) Did the spouses ever find out?

Many people are taking video of themselves having sex now, and even sharing it with the world. It’s another thing, though, for someone involved in consanguinamory to put it on video for the world to see, especially with strangers in the room.

So while I would expect they used pseudonyms in the videos, I have to wonder, where are you now, Alex, Brandy, Cathy (Incest Taboo 1,) Michael and Lynn (4), Barbara and Jason (5), Tom and Marie (6), Dre and Jessica (9), Tabitha and Brian (12), Gabe and Gretchen (13), Bobby and Jill (14), Rick and Tabitha (16) and the rest?

Anyone who has appeared in those videos or others that are presented as actual consanguinamory and can answer my questions (and anyone else for that matter), can contact me at fullmarriageequality at yahoo dot com or on Facebook.

Read more »

Posted in: brother-sister,cheating,coming out,consanguineous,father-daughter,incest,media,mother-son,polyamory,siblings,triads

Leontiades Lauds Love, Seeks Solidarity

Louisa Leontiades covers something at huffingtonpost.co.uk that is unavoidable in ethical nonmonogamy circles, and more specifically, in polyamorous circles: differences in relationship structures and guidelines, and how that divides some. Leontiades is founder of MultipleMatch.com, where this piece was previously published.

Those who feel the inclination to love many, have to learn by doing, and are often shunned and shamed whilst doing so, making the pursuit of their relationships a thousand times harder. Indeed the fact that the polyamorous community is growing at all in the face of constant opposition, is a true testament to the power of love... and marginalization. The power that the world gives polyamorists by vilification turns it into a cause, spawning Poly-pride, support groups like PolyLiving  and not for profit organizations like Loving More. 

Polyamory has definitely been coming out of the closet, but with that come some issues.

Unfortunately despite all the good intentions, a minority's struggle for acceptance will always create a 'prisoners' dilemma' and this one is no different. In the non-monogamous community certain relationship configurations are more likely to be accepted if they align themselves to already existing precepts and/or paradigms. For example as the idealised Male-Female-Female triad slowly becomes more acceptable to the general public, it's no coincidence  that it's also the most popular choice for many newly out-of the closet polyamorists; simply because it is the most familiar, comfortable and least controversial. To the outside world that is. Because poly-activists argue that this configuration still perpetuates male privilege (a bisexual female who gets it on with another girl, is no threat to the male ego - aka. One-Penis-Policy). Such a paradigm which is perceived to perpetuate the very patriarchy and notion of possession that polyamory tries to counteract in the first place, is one of the biggest hot potatoes.

I support each person finding what is best for them. For some people, that may be living alone, even being celibate (as difficult as that is for someone like me to think of as enjoyable). For others, it will be a closed, monogamous relationship, living together or not. For others, some form of ethical nonmonogamy is best. If someone, regardless of their gender, truly prefers a closed polygynous relationship, and they've found the people who make a good match, good for them. I say the same for someone who needs or prefers an equal number of men and women in their polycule, or someone who prefers polygyny, someone who needs a same-gender polycule, and all of the other possibilities (cosleeping, fluid bonding, public dates, meeting family, ceremonial bonding, etc.) Just because something isn't for me doesn't mean it isn't for someone else.

Likewise, some proponents of polyamory like to distance themselves from promiscuity and/or swinging which are heavily frowned upon by mainstreamers - even if many polyamorists discover their inclination by through such sexual liberation in the first place. Promiscuity is harshly condemned (at least when it concerns women) and swinging is premeditated promiscuity. It is - gasp - sex for fun. Moral judgements and definitions divide the non-monogamous community because the harsh rejection by the world of the community as a whole, creates a desperate need in many to achieve acceptance at any cost.

Again, let people decide for themselves.

Ethical non-monogamy by definition can include many different preferences, none more valid than the other. Of course it's worth listening to those who condemn (questioning values is what polyamorists are good at)... But know and trust that everyone's journey is different, including yours. Because when such a community is already small and despised by the outside world, it is doubly important to stick together.

Yes! YES! I've long called for solidarity on this blog. It is important when it comes to Interracial-LGBT-Poly-Consanguinamory cooperation and it is important when it comes to cooperation within ethical nonmonomist communities, too. There are many colors in a rainbow and many waves in a ocean. Ever notice, when looking in-person or at an image of a natural panorama, there are many different things that comprise the beautiful whole?

Read more »

Posted in: allies,boundaries,group,lack of equality harms,open,polyamory,polyandry,polygamy,polygyny,prejudice,solidarity,stigma,swinging,triads

Leontiades Lauds Love, Seeks Solidarity

Louisa Leontiades covers something at huffingtonpost.co.uk that is unavoidable in ethical nonmonogamy circles, and more specifically, in polyamorous circles: differences in relationship structures and guidelines, and how that divides some. Leontiades is founder of MultipleMatch.com, where this piece was previously published.

Those who feel the inclination to love many, have to learn by doing, and are often shunned and shamed whilst doing so, making the pursuit of their relationships a thousand times harder. Indeed the fact that the polyamorous community is growing at all in the face of constant opposition, is a true testament to the power of love... and marginalization. The power that the world gives polyamorists by vilification turns it into a cause, spawning Poly-pride, support groups like PolyLiving  and not for profit organizations like Loving More. 

Polyamory has definitely been coming out of the closet, but with that come some issues.

Unfortunately despite all the good intentions, a minority's struggle for acceptance will always create a 'prisoners' dilemma' and this one is no different. In the non-monogamous community certain relationship configurations are more likely to be accepted if they align themselves to already existing precepts and/or paradigms. For example as the idealised Male-Female-Female triad slowly becomes more acceptable to the general public, it's no coincidence  that it's also the most popular choice for many newly out-of the closet polyamorists; simply because it is the most familiar, comfortable and least controversial. To the outside world that is. Because poly-activists argue that this configuration still perpetuates male privilege (a bisexual female who gets it on with another girl, is no threat to the male ego - aka. One-Penis-Policy). Such a paradigm which is perceived to perpetuate the very patriarchy and notion of possession that polyamory tries to counteract in the first place, is one of the biggest hot potatoes.

I support each person finding what is best for them. For some people, that may be living alone, even being celibate (as difficult as that is for someone like me to think of as enjoyable). For others, it will be a closed, monogamous relationship, living together or not. For others, some form of ethical nonmonogamy is best. If someone, regardless of their gender, truly prefers a closed polygynous relationship, and they've found the people who make a good match, good for them. I say the same for someone who needs or prefers an equal number of men and women in their polycule, or someone who prefers polygyny, someone who needs a same-gender polycule, and all of the other possibilities (cosleeping, fluid bonding, public dates, meeting family, ceremonial bonding, etc.) Just because something isn't for me doesn't mean it isn't for someone else.

Likewise, some proponents of polyamory like to distance themselves from promiscuity and/or swinging which are heavily frowned upon by mainstreamers - even if many polyamorists discover their inclination by through such sexual liberation in the first place. Promiscuity is harshly condemned (at least when it concerns women) and swinging is premeditated promiscuity. It is - gasp - sex for fun. Moral judgements and definitions divide the non-monogamous community because the harsh rejection by the world of the community as a whole, creates a desperate need in many to achieve acceptance at any cost.

Again, let people decide for themselves.

Ethical non-monogamy by definition can include many different preferences, none more valid than the other. Of course it's worth listening to those who condemn (questioning values is what polyamorists are good at)... But know and trust that everyone's journey is different, including yours. Because when such a community is already small and despised by the outside world, it is doubly important to stick together.

Yes! YES! I've long called for solidarity on this blog. It is important when it comes to Interracial-LGBT-Poly-Consanguinamory cooperation and it is important when it comes to cooperation within ethical nonmonomist communities, too. There are many colors in a rainbow and many waves in a ocean. Ever notice, when looking in-person or at an image of a natural panorama, there are many different things that comprise the beautiful whole?

Read more »

Posted in: allies,boundaries,group,lack of equality harms,open,polyamory,polyandry,polygamy,polygyny,prejudice,solidarity,stigma,swinging,triads

Will Brazil Lead the Way in the West?

Hey Canada? Are you going to let Brazil beat you? Maybe by the time the Summer Olympics arrive there in a little over less than three years, Brazil will have full marriage equality.

It looks like Brazil will now have the same-gender freedom to marry nationwide.

Before this, though, anti-equality hate groups freaked out because a notary accepted a civil union between three people. So of course Brazil disappeared into the Atlantic Ocean. Only, it didn't. Not only did that not happen, but nobody was harmed. Here is the article from the BBC last August when that happened...

A notary in the Brazilian state of Sao Paulo has sparked controversy by accepting a civil union between three people.

Public Notary Claudia do Nascimento Domingues has said the man and two women should be entitled to family rights.

She says there is nothing in law to prevent such an arrangement.

Good for her!

Nathaniel Santos Batista Junior, a jurist who helped draft the document, said the idea was to protect their rights in case of separation or death of a partner, Globo reports.

Ms Domingues, who is based in the Sao Paulo city of Tupa, said the move reflected the fact that the idea of a "family" had changed.

"We are only recognising what has always existed. We are not inventing anything."

Yay! The BBC did not quote anyone saying exactly what was wrong with this, just essentially saying they didn't personally like it.

Brazil has no laws against consanguinamory, so nationwide full marriage equality for all lovers should be possible. An adult, regardless of sexual orientation, gender, race, or religion, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with ANY and ALL consenting adults, and if civil unions or domestic partnerships are issued or registered by a government, LGBT and poly people and people in consanguinamorous relationships should have equal access to them.

Canadians, are you willing to fall behind Brazil? Will the US Supreme Court let an opportunity to take the lead slip by? The US state of Rhode Island could leap to the front of pack if the leaders there want to. Who will be first in the West to reach full marriage equality?

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,Brazil,freedom to marry,law,LGBT,marriage equality,polyamory,polygyny,same-sex,triads

Will Brazil Lead the Way in the West?

Hey Canada? Are you going to let Brazil beat you? Maybe by the time the Summer Olympics arrive there in a little over less than three years, Brazil will have full marriage equality.

It looks like Brazil will now have the same-gender freedom to marry nationwide.

Before this, though, anti-equality hate groups freaked out because a notary accepted a civil union between three people. So of course Brazil disappeared into the Atlantic Ocean. Only, it didn't. Not only did that not happen, but nobody was harmed. Here is the article from the BBC last August when that happened...

A notary in the Brazilian state of Sao Paulo has sparked controversy by accepting a civil union between three people.

Public Notary Claudia do Nascimento Domingues has said the man and two women should be entitled to family rights.

She says there is nothing in law to prevent such an arrangement.

Good for her!

Nathaniel Santos Batista Junior, a jurist who helped draft the document, said the idea was to protect their rights in case of separation or death of a partner, Globo reports.

Ms Domingues, who is based in the Sao Paulo city of Tupa, said the move reflected the fact that the idea of a "family" had changed.

"We are only recognising what has always existed. We are not inventing anything."

Yay! The BBC did not quote anyone saying exactly what was wrong with this, just essentially saying they didn't personally like it.

Brazil has no laws against consanguinamory, so nationwide full marriage equality for all lovers should be possible. An adult, regardless of sexual orientation, gender, race, or religion, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with ANY and ALL consenting adults, and if civil unions or domestic partnerships are issued or registered by a government, LGBT and poly people and people in consanguinamorous relationships should have equal access to them.

Canadians, are you willing to fall behind Brazil? Will the US Supreme Court let an opportunity to take the lead slip by? The US state of Rhode Island could leap to the front of pack if the leaders there want to. Who will be first in the West to reach full marriage equality?

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,Brazil,freedom to marry,law,LGBT,marriage equality,polyamory,polygyny,same-sex,triads

Revisiting the Legal Nitty-Gritty of Polygamy

A very kind reader sent along a description of the legal theory by which the polygamous freedom to marry can be accomplished, and I will offer my thoughts as well. It's a long essay, Ultimately, the thing to take away is that our laws can accommodate people in any form of polyamory who want legal recognition of a marriage (polyagamy). Since as far as the government involvement is concerned, marriage is mostly about financial and "who has responsibility for whom" issues, contract and business law has already demonstrated that three or more people can have legally recognized relationships. I had previous written about this here.

There is an ongoing discussion among polyamory activists regarding a legal model of polyamorous marriage (i.e., the extension of the legal concept of marriage to include polyamorous families). One debate centers around the relative merits of an all-with-all approach to marriage (whereby three or more persons are all joined together at the same time within a single marriage) and dyadic networks (whereby existing laws against bigamy are revised such that people are perfectly free to be concurrently married to multiple other persons, provided that each such new marriage is preceded by a legal notification regarding the pending new marriage to all those to whom one is already married; failure to provide that legal notification would then constitute the updated crime of bigamy).

I think both should be offered. The basic paperwork can actually be rather simple.

Dyadic networks would result in what might be thought of as a "molecular" family structure — one which might be best represented by the molecular diagrams commonly used in chemistry. In this way, marriage would remain a dyadic relationship (i.e., a relationship between two persons), thus minimizing any changes to the existing system of legal marriage, but the introduction of concurrency would provide access to legal marriage for polyamorous families.

Dyadic networks can correctly represent any situation associated with the "all-with-all" paradigm, as well as many situations that the "all-with-all" paradigm cannot deal with. A "complete" dyadic network would take the form of a complete graph, in which every person is (pairwise) married to every other person, thus correctly representing any situation associated with the "all-with-all" paradigm.

What this is saying that if A, B, and C all want to marry as a triad, with a dyadic model that can be accomplished through A & B marrying, A & C marrying, and B & C marrying. However, the all-with-all model automatically does this with one ceremony and one piece of paper. All-with-all wouldn't be what every polycule would want, as detailed below. It would only be a desirable option for polycules in which every individual wants to be married to all of the others. It would only work for the triangle or the square below.

A dyadic network may also represent situations in which some persons are (pairwise) married to some members of the dyadic network but not to all of them ("V" and "N" geometries, for example) — these are situations that the "all-with-all" marriage paradigm is unable to accurately represent.

The "all-with-all" marriage paradigm assumes that everyone is equally involved with everyone else in the group — one global marriage agreement has to fit every participant at the same time. But dyadic network marriages separately define the terms of each specific 2-person relationship, and these dyadic marriages do not typically happen at the same time (A marries B, B marries C ("V" structure), C marries D ("N" structure), etc. — thus, the shape of the dyadic network dynamically changes over time). Participants in a dyadic network need not even be aware of the specific terms of marriage agreements existing elsewhere within the same dyadic network.

Under the "all-with-all" marriage paradigm, when irreconcilable differences arise there can be no alternative to a complete separation — one person cannot divorce another without ending the entire marriage agreement for everyone involved.

Actually, it doesn’t have to be complicated. This happens with, for example, rock or pop musical acts. Let’s pick a folk music act, Peter, Paul, and Mary, and assume they had equal ownership of the act. Let’s say Paul wants to leave, or Peter and Mary want to leave Paul. Paul gets compensated for 1/3rd of the act or, if there had been an agreement that said otherwise, whatever that agreement said. Then, Peter and Mary would continue on as a duo, and would be free to add new members.

But dyadic networks can function in much the same way as watertight compartmentalization functions in naval vessels, i.e., to limit and contain damage. An intense disagreement between two persons takes place within the context of their marriage, and need not greatly involve (or threaten) the relationships between other participants. Within a well-connected dyadic network, a divorce between two persons need not result in a complete separation of the network — for example, a dyadic network with triangle geometry would simply turn into a dyadic network with "V" geometry. 

An "all-with-all" marriage can only exist or cease to exist. In contrast, the shape of a dyadic network can dynamically change over time. Divorces subtract connections, and marriages add connections. The dyadic network itself either changes shape, separates into two dyadic networks, or merges into another dyadic network, depending on the precise nature of the newly added or subtracted connection. 

The maximum size of an "all-with-all" marriage is limited by the fact that every participant must be aware of the existence of every other participant (otherwise the global marriage contract would be invalid, because it could not satisfy the legal condition known as a "meeting of the minds"). But since a dyadic network relies only upon every participant's local knowledge of his or her own direct partners, its size is theoretically unlimited. The dyadic network paradigm is so powerful that it is theoretically capable of managing a situation in which every adult on earth is legally joined together in a single enormous dyadic network. Thus, with the dyadic network model, the idea of "many loves" is directly translated into a practical reality, and the "infinity" symbol (representing love without limits) is directly matched by a marriage model capable of handling an infinitely large number of participants.

Implementing Dyadic Networks

Within the United States, 41 states (82%) use the "equitable distribution" financial model, which is highly compatible with dyadic networks. But there are also nine other states (18%) with a financial model that is incompatible with dyadic networks - these are collectively referred to as the "community property" states (Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin).

The implementation method for the "community property" states is that the dyadic networks model will simply coexist with the old "community property" monogamy model. New marriages will automatically default to the dyadic networks model, but if the couple prefers the monogamous "community property" model then they have the option of selecting that model instead.

A triad in a community property state would mean each would get 1/3rd by default. However, that could be modified by pre- or post-nuptial agreements. Ideally, each state should allow people to choose what they want. It wouldn’t be difficult to make a couple of simple questions part of the standard marriage paperwork. If someone wants to be more detailed about who would get what upon leaving or dissolution, they can affic a prenuptial agreement, just like is done now.

Consider, for example, the existing marriage laws of Alaska.  Alaska is an "equitable distribution" state, hence couples who marry in Alaska will marry under the "equitable distribution" model by default, but these couples can instead elect to marry under the "community property" monogamy model if they wish (they do this by executing either a community property agreement or a community property trust).
Alaska thus constitutes an existence proof that both financial models can peacefully coexist within the same U.S. state's legal system.  Alaska's example shows that even community property states can easily be modernized to accomodate dyadic networks.

Polyamorous Committment

The Dyadic Networks model of polyamorous marriage raises important questions related to marital commitment. With a single dyad, the situation is simple; each spouse commits to support and protect the other, and the logic of conventional monogamous marriage applies. However, when multiple dyads intersect in a dyadic network, how exactly does the commitment process work? 

To understand this, let us consider the parent-child relationship.   In the parent-child situation, the support commitment exists only in one direction - from parent to child.  When there is a single parent, the child has a single source of commitment, and all protection must come from that source.  However, when there are two parents, they are jointly responsible for meeting the child's needs.  The precise arrangement is worked out somehow, and provided that the child's needs are being met the law has no need to intervene.  If the child's needs are not being met, then debt collection methods such as garnishing wages, seizing assets, etc. can and do occur in order to ensure that child support takes place.  These actions are typically proportional to income and/or wealth, so the wealthier parent will pay more.  Where a parent has commitments to multiple children, the parent must faithfully carry out his or her responsibilities to each and every child.   Although it may sometimes seem that the needs of children are unlimited, this is not actually the case, and once a child's needs are satisfied (a certain amount of food, shelter, medical care, etc.), all parents of that child may regard their commitments as being satisfied with respect to each need for which adequate provision has been made, regardless of which parent(s) actually did the work of satisfying that need. 

Turning now to commitment in the dyadic network model, this can be understood as a bidirectional version of the parent-child model.  Each dyad represents a commitment of each spouse to the other.  Thus, in a V configuration, the two partners at the ends of the V each rely upon commitments from the single partner at the center of the V (the "pivot") - each of them has one spouse.  The "pivot" partner can rely upon two commitments, one from each of the two partners at the two ends of the V - the pivot partner has two spouses.  If the pivot partner is incapacitated, he or she is in a position comparable to that of a child with two parents - two people are committed to assist him or her and must do so up to the point at which the pivot partner's needs are satisfied.  If one of the partners at the end of the V is incapacitated, he or she has only one spouse to rely upon - the pivot partner, who is fully responsible for meeting the incapacitated partner's needs up to the point at which that partner's needs are satisfied.  If both partners at the end of the V are incapacitated, then the pivot partner is in a position comparable to that of a single parent with two sick children - he or she must meet the needs of both. 

Let us now consider whether the commitment relationship is "transitive" - if A is committed to B, and B is committed to C, does this mean that A is committed to C?  No, this is not the case.  C can legally rely only upon the commitment of B and has no legal basis to expect or receive a commitment from A.  Nor can A rely upon the commitment of C - that could happen only when and if A directly married (mutually committed to) C.  However, suppose that C's needs are so large that B is thereby driven into bankruptcy and becomes destitute.  Then B can rely upon A's commitment to provide B with a certain minimal level of support (food, shelter, medical care, etc.).  Thus C's needs can have an effect on B that causes A to provide more support to B than would have been the case had C not needed to draw heavily upon B's commitment. 

Hence, under the dyadic networks model, positive effects arise as a result of multiple commitments.  When there is only a single dyad, there is a substantial risk that the size of the commitment will exceed the capacity of the committed.  However, when each person is linked to multiple other partners in a dyadic network, this has the effect of bringing in additional capacity to meet any needs that may arise.  Three or four spouses may be easily able to carry a commitment load that would have quickly driven a single spouse into bankruptcy. 

The analogy to parent-child relationships carries over into other situations as well.  Just as it would be improper to discriminate against a parent for having too many children (or too few children), so it would be improper to discriminate against a person for having too many or too few spouses.  But with each additional child comes an additional commitment, and the same is true of an additional spouse.  Adding another child to one's health insurance coverage will usually result in an increased monthly charge for the insurance, thus adding another spouse would probably have a comparable effect.  But a child, or a spouse, only needs to be covered once, regardless of how many parents, or spouses, are available to provide that coverage.  Also, a spouse may be economically self-supporting and thus able to pay for his or her own health insurance, so in this respect the total support cost for an additional spouse would then be zero. 

Having drawn lessons from the parent-child relationship and applied them to dyadic networks, let us now draw a lesson from dyadic networks and apply it to the parent-child relationship.  

Just as there is no inherent reason why a person should not have more than one spouse, so there is no inherent reason why a child should not have more than two parents.  When the law of marriage is updated to legally support dyadic networks, the existing adoption mechanism can be used as a means by which additional commitments to children can be created.  For example, a single dyad may have already produced two children when each member of the dyad marries a third partner, thus creating a triangle.  The newest member of this dyadic network can then execute two adoptions to become the third parent of each of the dyad's two children.  Hence, in this situation, each of the three adults now has two spouses and two children.  To the extent that any legal barriers might hinder the use of adoption in this manner, such legal barriers would also need to be direct targets of polyamory's legal activism (in addition, of course, to updating the law of marriage to support dyadic networks). 

This N-parent situation has already been raised in the New York Times (When 3 Really Is A Crowd, July 16 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/opinion/16marquardt.html): “On April 30, a state Superior Court panel ruled that a child can have three legal parents.  […]  Arthur S. Leonard, a professor at New York Law School, observed, 'I’m unaware of any other state appellate court that has found that a child has, simultaneously, three adults who are financially obligated to the child’s support and are also entitled to visitation.'  […]  As one advocate of polygamy argued in Newsweek, 'If Heather can have two mommies, she should also be able to have two mommies and a daddy.' If more children are granted three legal parents, what is our rationale for denying these families the rights and protections of marriage?”  Our firm answer: there cannot be any legitimate rationale for the unconstitutional denial of this legal protection to polyamorous families 

The New York Times op-ed raises a question: “Conflicts will undoubtedly arise when three parents confront the sticky, conflict-ridden reality of child-raising, often leading to a nasty, three-way custody battle. Even if they part amicably, they may still want to live in three different homes. In that case, how many homes should children travel between to satisfy the parenting needs of many adults?”  The legal answer has been provided by New York Law School Professor Arthur S. Leonard (Pennsylvania Court Finds Three Adults Can Have Parental Rights,  May 01, 2007, http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2007/05/pennsylvania_co.html): “[...] the court gave Jennifer primary custody of the one nephew who was living with her, and partial custody (visitation rights) with the other three children; Jodilynn got primary custody of the three children and partial custody (visitation) with the one nephew, and Carl was awarded partial custody (visitation) of one weekend a month with his two children.”  In the event of divorce, family law judges will calculate child support obligations and distribute visitation rights in accordance with the best interests of the child(ren).

Read more »

Posted in: freedom to marry,group,law,polyamory,polygamy,quads,triads

Revisiting the Legal Nitty-Gritty of Polygamy

A very kind reader sent along a description of the legal theory by which the polygamous freedom to marry can be accomplished, and I will offer my thoughts as well. It's a long essay, Ultimately, the thing to take away is that our laws can accommodate people in any form of polyamory who want legal recognition of a marriage (polyagamy). Since as far as the government involvement is concerned, marriage is mostly about financial and "who has responsibility for whom" issues, contract and business law has already demonstrated that three or more people can have legally recognized relationships. I had previous written about this here.

There is an ongoing discussion among polyamory activists regarding a legal model of polyamorous marriage (i.e., the extension of the legal concept of marriage to include polyamorous families). One debate centers around the relative merits of an all-with-all approach to marriage (whereby three or more persons are all joined together at the same time within a single marriage) and dyadic networks (whereby existing laws against bigamy are revised such that people are perfectly free to be concurrently married to multiple other persons, provided that each such new marriage is preceded by a legal notification regarding the pending new marriage to all those to whom one is already married; failure to provide that legal notification would then constitute the updated crime of bigamy).

I think both should be offered. The basic paperwork can actually be rather simple.

Dyadic networks would result in what might be thought of as a "molecular" family structure — one which might be best represented by the molecular diagrams commonly used in chemistry. In this way, marriage would remain a dyadic relationship (i.e., a relationship between two persons), thus minimizing any changes to the existing system of legal marriage, but the introduction of concurrency would provide access to legal marriage for polyamorous families.

Dyadic networks can correctly represent any situation associated with the "all-with-all" paradigm, as well as many situations that the "all-with-all" paradigm cannot deal with. A "complete" dyadic network would take the form of a complete graph, in which every person is (pairwise) married to every other person, thus correctly representing any situation associated with the "all-with-all" paradigm.

What this is saying that if A, B, and C all want to marry as a triad, with a dyadic model that can be accomplished through A & B marrying, A & C marrying, and B & C marrying. However, the all-with-all model automatically does this with one ceremony and one piece of paper. All-with-all wouldn't be what every polycule would want, as detailed below. It would only be a desirable option for polycules in which every individual wants to be married to all of the others. It would only work for the triangle or the square below.

A dyadic network may also represent situations in which some persons are (pairwise) married to some members of the dyadic network but not to all of them ("V" and "N" geometries, for example) — these are situations that the "all-with-all" marriage paradigm is unable to accurately represent.

The "all-with-all" marriage paradigm assumes that everyone is equally involved with everyone else in the group — one global marriage agreement has to fit every participant at the same time. But dyadic network marriages separately define the terms of each specific 2-person relationship, and these dyadic marriages do not typically happen at the same time (A marries B, B marries C ("V" structure), C marries D ("N" structure), etc. — thus, the shape of the dyadic network dynamically changes over time). Participants in a dyadic network need not even be aware of the specific terms of marriage agreements existing elsewhere within the same dyadic network.

Under the "all-with-all" marriage paradigm, when irreconcilable differences arise there can be no alternative to a complete separation — one person cannot divorce another without ending the entire marriage agreement for everyone involved.

Actually, it doesn’t have to be complicated. This happens with, for example, rock or pop musical acts. Let’s pick a folk music act, Peter, Paul, and Mary, and assume they had equal ownership of the act. Let’s say Paul wants to leave, or Peter and Mary want to leave Paul. Paul gets compensated for 1/3rd of the act or, if there had been an agreement that said otherwise, whatever that agreement said. Then, Peter and Mary would continue on as a duo, and would be free to add new members.

But dyadic networks can function in much the same way as watertight compartmentalization functions in naval vessels, i.e., to limit and contain damage. An intense disagreement between two persons takes place within the context of their marriage, and need not greatly involve (or threaten) the relationships between other participants. Within a well-connected dyadic network, a divorce between two persons need not result in a complete separation of the network — for example, a dyadic network with triangle geometry would simply turn into a dyadic network with "V" geometry. 

An "all-with-all" marriage can only exist or cease to exist. In contrast, the shape of a dyadic network can dynamically change over time. Divorces subtract connections, and marriages add connections. The dyadic network itself either changes shape, separates into two dyadic networks, or merges into another dyadic network, depending on the precise nature of the newly added or subtracted connection. 

The maximum size of an "all-with-all" marriage is limited by the fact that every participant must be aware of the existence of every other participant (otherwise the global marriage contract would be invalid, because it could not satisfy the legal condition known as a "meeting of the minds"). But since a dyadic network relies only upon every participant's local knowledge of his or her own direct partners, its size is theoretically unlimited. The dyadic network paradigm is so powerful that it is theoretically capable of managing a situation in which every adult on earth is legally joined together in a single enormous dyadic network. Thus, with the dyadic network model, the idea of "many loves" is directly translated into a practical reality, and the "infinity" symbol (representing love without limits) is directly matched by a marriage model capable of handling an infinitely large number of participants.

Implementing Dyadic Networks

Within the United States, 41 states (82%) use the "equitable distribution" financial model, which is highly compatible with dyadic networks. But there are also nine other states (18%) with a financial model that is incompatible with dyadic networks - these are collectively referred to as the "community property" states (Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin).

The implementation method for the "community property" states is that the dyadic networks model will simply coexist with the old "community property" monogamy model. New marriages will automatically default to the dyadic networks model, but if the couple prefers the monogamous "community property" model then they have the option of selecting that model instead.

A triad in a community property state would mean each would get 1/3rd by default. However, that could be modified by pre- or post-nuptial agreements. Ideally, each state should allow people to choose what they want. It wouldn’t be difficult to make a couple of simple questions part of the standard marriage paperwork. If someone wants to be more detailed about who would get what upon leaving or dissolution, they can affic a prenuptial agreement, just like is done now.

Consider, for example, the existing marriage laws of Alaska.  Alaska is an "equitable distribution" state, hence couples who marry in Alaska will marry under the "equitable distribution" model by default, but these couples can instead elect to marry under the "community property" monogamy model if they wish (they do this by executing either a community property agreement or a community property trust).
Alaska thus constitutes an existence proof that both financial models can peacefully coexist within the same U.S. state's legal system.  Alaska's example shows that even community property states can easily be modernized to accomodate dyadic networks.

Polyamorous Committment

The Dyadic Networks model of polyamorous marriage raises important questions related to marital commitment. With a single dyad, the situation is simple; each spouse commits to support and protect the other, and the logic of conventional monogamous marriage applies. However, when multiple dyads intersect in a dyadic network, how exactly does the commitment process work? 

To understand this, let us consider the parent-child relationship.   In the parent-child situation, the support commitment exists only in one direction - from parent to child.  When there is a single parent, the child has a single source of commitment, and all protection must come from that source.  However, when there are two parents, they are jointly responsible for meeting the child's needs.  The precise arrangement is worked out somehow, and provided that the child's needs are being met the law has no need to intervene.  If the child's needs are not being met, then debt collection methods such as garnishing wages, seizing assets, etc. can and do occur in order to ensure that child support takes place.  These actions are typically proportional to income and/or wealth, so the wealthier parent will pay more.  Where a parent has commitments to multiple children, the parent must faithfully carry out his or her responsibilities to each and every child.   Although it may sometimes seem that the needs of children are unlimited, this is not actually the case, and once a child's needs are satisfied (a certain amount of food, shelter, medical care, etc.), all parents of that child may regard their commitments as being satisfied with respect to each need for which adequate provision has been made, regardless of which parent(s) actually did the work of satisfying that need. 

Turning now to commitment in the dyadic network model, this can be understood as a bidirectional version of the parent-child model.  Each dyad represents a commitment of each spouse to the other.  Thus, in a V configuration, the two partners at the ends of the V each rely upon commitments from the single partner at the center of the V (the "pivot") - each of them has one spouse.  The "pivot" partner can rely upon two commitments, one from each of the two partners at the two ends of the V - the pivot partner has two spouses.  If the pivot partner is incapacitated, he or she is in a position comparable to that of a child with two parents - two people are committed to assist him or her and must do so up to the point at which the pivot partner's needs are satisfied.  If one of the partners at the end of the V is incapacitated, he or she has only one spouse to rely upon - the pivot partner, who is fully responsible for meeting the incapacitated partner's needs up to the point at which that partner's needs are satisfied.  If both partners at the end of the V are incapacitated, then the pivot partner is in a position comparable to that of a single parent with two sick children - he or she must meet the needs of both. 

Let us now consider whether the commitment relationship is "transitive" - if A is committed to B, and B is committed to C, does this mean that A is committed to C?  No, this is not the case.  C can legally rely only upon the commitment of B and has no legal basis to expect or receive a commitment from A.  Nor can A rely upon the commitment of C - that could happen only when and if A directly married (mutually committed to) C.  However, suppose that C's needs are so large that B is thereby driven into bankruptcy and becomes destitute.  Then B can rely upon A's commitment to provide B with a certain minimal level of support (food, shelter, medical care, etc.).  Thus C's needs can have an effect on B that causes A to provide more support to B than would have been the case had C not needed to draw heavily upon B's commitment. 

Hence, under the dyadic networks model, positive effects arise as a result of multiple commitments.  When there is only a single dyad, there is a substantial risk that the size of the commitment will exceed the capacity of the committed.  However, when each person is linked to multiple other partners in a dyadic network, this has the effect of bringing in additional capacity to meet any needs that may arise.  Three or four spouses may be easily able to carry a commitment load that would have quickly driven a single spouse into bankruptcy. 

The analogy to parent-child relationships carries over into other situations as well.  Just as it would be improper to discriminate against a parent for having too many children (or too few children), so it would be improper to discriminate against a person for having too many or too few spouses.  But with each additional child comes an additional commitment, and the same is true of an additional spouse.  Adding another child to one's health insurance coverage will usually result in an increased monthly charge for the insurance, thus adding another spouse would probably have a comparable effect.  But a child, or a spouse, only needs to be covered once, regardless of how many parents, or spouses, are available to provide that coverage.  Also, a spouse may be economically self-supporting and thus able to pay for his or her own health insurance, so in this respect the total support cost for an additional spouse would then be zero. 

Having drawn lessons from the parent-child relationship and applied them to dyadic networks, let us now draw a lesson from dyadic networks and apply it to the parent-child relationship.  

Just as there is no inherent reason why a person should not have more than one spouse, so there is no inherent reason why a child should not have more than two parents.  When the law of marriage is updated to legally support dyadic networks, the existing adoption mechanism can be used as a means by which additional commitments to children can be created.  For example, a single dyad may have already produced two children when each member of the dyad marries a third partner, thus creating a triangle.  The newest member of this dyadic network can then execute two adoptions to become the third parent of each of the dyad's two children.  Hence, in this situation, each of the three adults now has two spouses and two children.  To the extent that any legal barriers might hinder the use of adoption in this manner, such legal barriers would also need to be direct targets of polyamory's legal activism (in addition, of course, to updating the law of marriage to support dyadic networks). 

This N-parent situation has already been raised in the New York Times (When 3 Really Is A Crowd, July 16 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/opinion/16marquardt.html): “On April 30, a state Superior Court panel ruled that a child can have three legal parents.  […]  Arthur S. Leonard, a professor at New York Law School, observed, 'I’m unaware of any other state appellate court that has found that a child has, simultaneously, three adults who are financially obligated to the child’s support and are also entitled to visitation.'  […]  As one advocate of polygamy argued in Newsweek, 'If Heather can have two mommies, she should also be able to have two mommies and a daddy.' If more children are granted three legal parents, what is our rationale for denying these families the rights and protections of marriage?”  Our firm answer: there cannot be any legitimate rationale for the unconstitutional denial of this legal protection to polyamorous families 

The New York Times op-ed raises a question: “Conflicts will undoubtedly arise when three parents confront the sticky, conflict-ridden reality of child-raising, often leading to a nasty, three-way custody battle. Even if they part amicably, they may still want to live in three different homes. In that case, how many homes should children travel between to satisfy the parenting needs of many adults?”  The legal answer has been provided by New York Law School Professor Arthur S. Leonard (Pennsylvania Court Finds Three Adults Can Have Parental Rights,  May 01, 2007, http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2007/05/pennsylvania_co.html): “[...] the court gave Jennifer primary custody of the one nephew who was living with her, and partial custody (visitation rights) with the other three children; Jodilynn got primary custody of the three children and partial custody (visitation) with the one nephew, and Carl was awarded partial custody (visitation) of one weekend a month with his two children.”  In the event of divorce, family law judges will calculate child support obligations and distribute visitation rights in accordance with the best interests of the child(ren).

Read more »

Posted in: freedom to marry,group,law,polyamory,polygamy,quads,triads

Polyamorous Triad Featured in South African News

Noor-Jehan Yoro Badat writes about polyamory at iol.co.za...

Before I met Mark, Kate and Alice at a Joburg restaurant, I learnt that they are considered the “poster children” of polyamory in South Africa. That is why, says Mark, they try to present a positive image to their community, despite some people’s disapproval of their unconventional bond.

There is a wide variety of polyamorous people. We come from all backgrounds. We are in every geographic region, every socioeconomic status, in just about every political or religious organization of any size. Some of us are are in open or partially open polycules, some of us are in closed polyfidelitous polycules, some of us aren't in a polycule at all right now. Some of the polycules are "Vs," some of them are triangles, some are quads, etc. Different polycules have different guidelines. Some of us are outspokenly out, some of us are quietly out, some of us are partially out, some of us are in the closet. Some of us live together, some of us don't. Some of us sleep in the same bed, some of us don't. Some of us only ever have one-on-one sex, some of us usually have sex that involves three or more lovers. Some of us are quite "vanilla" in or lovemaking (other than being in a polycule) and some of us are into BDSM or something else. Some of us want to have a recognized polyamorous marriage, some of us don't want to get married at all.

What I'm trying to say is that the only thing that all poly people have in common is that they are oriented towards, prefer, or are in relationships in which at least one person in the relationship seeks or has sex with or romantically or erotically loves more than one person, with the agreement of all involved.

The three have nothing against monogamy – they all started out that way. But Kate says she was “never very good” at committing to her partners.

Did she put it that way? Because many poly people are good at committing... so good, in fact, that they commit to more than one person.

Falling in love with Mark and accepting his deep feelings for Kate was hard and nerve-racking in the beginning, says Alice, who had always believed in monogamy.

“I was in two minds about being with two people, but willing to try anything… It took me a long time to be comfortable.” 

She’s not resentful of Mark’s time with Kate. “I have my moments of insecurity, but we even ourselves out and get past it,” adds Alice. 

“I do see myself spending the rest of my life with them.” 

They should be free to have that, without bullying or discrimination.

This accompanied the article...

Isn’t it just swinging with a fancier name?

Polyamory isn’t swinging, says sex educator Avri Spilka.
 

Swingers engage in purely sexual activities with other partners for reasons that include adding variety to their sex lives.

“I see an unwritten rule in swinging,” says Spilka. “You don’t fall in love. It’s physical, even affectionate, but it’s not seen as emotional.

“And that’s the difference with polyamory – it has an emotional aspect. Swinging is more sensory,” says Spilka, who herself is in a polyamorous relationship.

Polyamory has come out. There's no going back.

Read more »

Posted in: Africa,boundaries,coming out,family reaction,love,media,open,polyamory,prejudice,swinging,triads