A Natural Attraction

The journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin published the results of a study by R. Chris Fraley and Michael J. Marks that has received some almost-mainstream media attention. The study indicates that we are sexually attracted to our close relatives on a physical basis.

From Wired:

In a series of experiments where subjects viewed photographs of their opposite-sex parent or a photo morphed with their own face, researchers found that people are turned on by photographs of people who resemble their close genetic counterparts.

“People appear to be drawn to others who resemble their kin or themselves,” said psychologist R. Chris Fraley of the University of Illinois, lead author of the study published July 20 in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. “It is possible, therefore, as Freud suggested, that incest taboos exist to counter this primitive tendency.”

If we are driven to spread our genes, then wouldn’t it make sense that we’d be attracted to the people who share some of those genes? Or, if my father is genetically predisposed to be attracted to women with a certain look, wouldn’t it be possible that I have those genes, too, and so I’d be attracted to someone who looks like my mother?

It makes sense that there is some natural or social mechanism that mitigates this to prevent young siblings or parents of minor children from doing things that subvert other parental or sibling responsibilities, in addition to most people not being pedophiles. But that mechanism isn’t needed beyond a certain age.

The Huffington Post also mentioned the news.

While rare, some coupled relatives have come out of the woodwork in proof of this theory. In 2008, father and daughter John and Jenny Deaves were featured on 60 Minutes episode about genetic sexual attraction. Not only did the two admit to having an amorous relationship but also to conceiving children together. They live in South Australia.

While it isn't an uncommon experience, only a few people have come out publicly with their accounts of GSA. Most people are afraid to, and for good reason, given how people are currently treated in most places in the world if they come out.

The blog at Discover Magazine also covered the story.

Fortunately, none of this coverage I found back when this was fresh was overtly bigoted.

So should there really be laws and social hostility towards something that is natural? Some people strike out against attractions they do not share or do not understand. We see that when it comes to interracial or same-gender attraction, and we see it when it comes to this.

Read more »

Posted in: consanguineous,GSA,media,science

A Natural Attraction

The journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin published the results of a study by R. Chris Fraley and Michael J. Marks that has received some almost-mainstream media attention. The study indicates that we are sexually attracted to our close relatives on a physical basis.

From Wired:

In a series of experiments where subjects viewed photographs of their opposite-sex parent or a photo morphed with their own face, researchers found that people are turned on by photographs of people who resemble their close genetic counterparts.

“People appear to be drawn to others who resemble their kin or themselves,” said psychologist R. Chris Fraley of the University of Illinois, lead author of the study published July 20 in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. “It is possible, therefore, as Freud suggested, that incest taboos exist to counter this primitive tendency.”

If we are driven to spread our genes, then wouldn’t it make sense that we’d be attracted to the people who share some of those genes? Or, if my father is genetically predisposed to be attracted to women with a certain look, wouldn’t it be possible that I have those genes, too, and so I’d be attracted to someone who looks like my mother?

It makes sense that there is some natural or social mechanism that mitigates this to prevent young siblings or parents of minor children from doing things that subvert other parental or sibling responsibilities, in addition to most people not being pedophiles. But that mechanism isn’t needed beyond a certain age.

The Huffington Post also mentioned the news.

While rare, some coupled relatives have come out of the woodwork in proof of this theory. In 2008, father and daughter John and Jenny Deaves were featured on 60 Minutes episode about genetic sexual attraction. Not only did the two admit to having an amorous relationship but also to conceiving children together. They live in South Australia.

While it isn't an uncommon experience, only a few people have come out publicly with their accounts of GSA. Most people are afraid to, and for good reason, given how people are currently treated in most places in the world if they come out.

The blog at Discover Magazine also covered the story.

Fortunately, none of this coverage I found back when this was fresh was overtly bigoted.

So should there really be laws and social hostility towards something that is natural? Some people strike out against attractions they do not share or do not understand. We see that when it comes to interracial or same-gender attraction, and we see it when it comes to this.

Read more »

Posted in: consanguineous,GSA,media,science

The Poly Freedom to Marry Will Happen

Bumped up so I can refer you to compare what I wrote with what was written at this poly blog.

With awareness of polyamory rising, there has been buzz lately, some of it with a discouraging tone, about whether or not polyamorous marriages (what I call polygamy) will be legalized. I don't consider it an if, but a when. Others, not so much. Mistress Matisse at The Stranger doesn't agree, for one example.

It's true that some poly people don't want their relationship associated with anything resembling hetero-mono conformity or formality, especially not in a form registered with a government, and some of those don't want anyone's relationship anointed by government. There are others, however, who do want to be free to have their polyamorous marriage registered and treated equally.

As long as marriage, civil unions, or anything of the sort is offered by the government, then an adult should be be free to enter into one with any and all consenting adults. From a government perspective, marriage is about money (forming a corporation) and next-of-kin. When it comes to money, we already have models in business of how to accommodate more than two people, how to handle it if one person wants to leave or another wants to join, etc, When it comes to next of kin, that can be sorted out with an additional legal document or a single line on a marriage license.

All of the legal questions can be addressed, and such questions should not deny someone their fundamental rights. It is an established pattern, in the US anyway, that even though it is convenient for the majority to not allow a minority their rights, the minority can't be denied their rights. Racial desegregation wasn't convenient. It meant changing a lot of things.

So, monogamists might not see a need. People who do not want ongoing relationships with anyone might not see the need. Even some poly people might not see the need. But the need is there. Polyamorists must be afforded equal protection and equal access. Like other adults, we must be protected against discrimination perpetrated because of who we love.


It should be obvious to anyone paying attention that some people are polyamorous just as much as they are left-handed or right-handed, even if those people are not seeing anyone at all at any given time in their lives. Monogamy isn't for everyone. Polyamory is for some, and everyone will be better off the faster more people realize this.

Whether someone wants to be celibate, or have monogamy, or have some form of polyamory, or want to swing or swap, whether they want to have an open or closed relationship... whether they want to cohabitate or not, or get married or not... those should all be up to the people involved. They should have those options, and it shouldn't mean they can be discriminated against, abused, bullied, or harassed.

Don't bet on there never being a strong push from poly people and our allies. Bets against the advancement of civil rights haven't turned out so well in the long run. There is no good reason to deny the polygamous freedom to marry. It's going to happen.

Read more »

Posted in: freedom to marry,myths,polyamory,polygamy

The Poly Freedom to Marry Will Happen

Bumped up so I can refer you to compare what I wrote with what was written at this poly blog.

With awareness of polyamory rising, there has been buzz lately, some of it with a discouraging tone, about whether or not polyamorous marriages (what I call polygamy) will be legalized. I don't consider it an if, but a when. Others, not so much. Mistress Matisse at The Stranger doesn't agree, for one example.

It's true that some poly people don't want their relationship associated with anything resembling hetero-mono conformity or formality, especially not in a form registered with a government, and some of those don't want anyone's relationship anointed by government. There are others, however, who do want to be free to have their polyamorous marriage registered and treated equally.

As long as marriage, civil unions, or anything of the sort is offered by the government, then an adult should be be free to enter into one with any and all consenting adults. From a government perspective, marriage is about money (forming a corporation) and next-of-kin. When it comes to money, we already have models in business of how to accommodate more than two people, how to handle it if one person wants to leave or another wants to join, etc, When it comes to next of kin, that can be sorted out with an additional legal document or a single line on a marriage license.

All of the legal questions can be addressed, and such questions should not deny someone their fundamental rights. It is an established pattern, in the US anyway, that even though it is convenient for the majority to not allow a minority their rights, the minority can't be denied their rights. Racial desegregation wasn't convenient. It meant changing a lot of things.

So, monogamists might not see a need. People who do not want ongoing relationships with anyone might not see the need. Even some poly people might not see the need. But the need is there. Polyamorists must be afforded equal protection and equal access. Like other adults, we must be protected against discrimination perpetrated because of who we love.


It should be obvious to anyone paying attention that some people are polyamorous just as much as they are left-handed or right-handed, even if those people are not seeing anyone at all at any given time in their lives. Monogamy isn't for everyone. Polyamory is for some, and everyone will be better off the faster more people realize this.

Whether someone wants to be celibate, or have monogamy, or have some form of polyamory, or want to swing or swap, whether they want to have an open or closed relationship... whether they want to cohabitate or not, or get married or not... those should all be up to the people involved. They should have those options, and it shouldn't mean they can be discriminated against, abused, bullied, or harassed.

Don't bet on there never being a strong push from poly people and our allies. Bets against the advancement of civil rights haven't turned out so well in the long run. There is no good reason to deny the polygamous freedom to marry. It's going to happen.

Read more »

Posted in: freedom to marry,myths,polyamory,polygamy

Polyamory in the Spotlight

Thanks to OWN's Our America with Lisa Ling featuring some polyamorous people, awareness of polyamory is accelerating again. Most of the reactions I have seen from poly people have been positive. Rich Juzwiak at gawker.com had this...

In a brash Barbara Walters-esque style, Ling asked several of the profiled subjects what it's like to be considered perverts and freaks by mainstream society for loving multiple people. It was almost cartoonishly rude, but it gave the opportunity for what all seem like reasonable, well-adjusted people to give reasonable, well-adjusted answers about their way of life ("lifestyle," a word frequently used on the show even by the polyamorous, seems like a pejorative, but maybe that's just me being gay).

"There's nothing wrong with what you're doing. It's not something to hide or be ashamed of. Loving people, however you love them, is not a bad thing," said one correct person. The rational case for polyamory expands.

And huffingtonpost.com also noted the program.

Colleen is a seemingly typical 11-year-old girl. She loves horseback riding, her new phone, and her friends. But Colleen's family is anything but typical; they are polyamorous, meaning that they have multiple partners. Colleen and her mother, Regina, live with Russell, Regina's husband, and Dave, Regina's boyfriend. In this deleted scene from "Our America with Lisa Ling," Regina speaks about the benefits of having multiple adults around to help raise her daughter. She also reveals how their unique lifestyle is explained to Colleen.

"We've been open pretty much her entire life," she says. "It's just been this gradual introduction over time, that some people think that you are only allowed to love one other person. And how we've presented it is we've found that we can actually love more than one other person. And that doesn't mean that this relationship is less because I love this other person too."

The more awareness of polyamory, the better. Sure, some prejudiced people will spew hate. But more people will be able to put a name to who they are and that polyamory is a viable option, and more allies will be created as people see that polyamorous people are just like everyone else. We're your classmates, your coworkers, your neighbors, your family members... we're everywhere, and there's no good reason poly people should be denied their rights.

Read more »

Posted in: love,media,polyamory

Polyamory in the Spotlight

Thanks to OWN's Our America with Lisa Ling featuring some polyamorous people, awareness of polyamory is accelerating again. Most of the reactions I have seen from poly people have been positive. Rich Juzwiak at gawker.com had this...

In a brash Barbara Walters-esque style, Ling asked several of the profiled subjects what it's like to be considered perverts and freaks by mainstream society for loving multiple people. It was almost cartoonishly rude, but it gave the opportunity for what all seem like reasonable, well-adjusted people to give reasonable, well-adjusted answers about their way of life ("lifestyle," a word frequently used on the show even by the polyamorous, seems like a pejorative, but maybe that's just me being gay).

"There's nothing wrong with what you're doing. It's not something to hide or be ashamed of. Loving people, however you love them, is not a bad thing," said one correct person. The rational case for polyamory expands.

And huffingtonpost.com also noted the program.

Colleen is a seemingly typical 11-year-old girl. She loves horseback riding, her new phone, and her friends. But Colleen's family is anything but typical; they are polyamorous, meaning that they have multiple partners. Colleen and her mother, Regina, live with Russell, Regina's husband, and Dave, Regina's boyfriend. In this deleted scene from "Our America with Lisa Ling," Regina speaks about the benefits of having multiple adults around to help raise her daughter. She also reveals how their unique lifestyle is explained to Colleen.

"We've been open pretty much her entire life," she says. "It's just been this gradual introduction over time, that some people think that you are only allowed to love one other person. And how we've presented it is we've found that we can actually love more than one other person. And that doesn't mean that this relationship is less because I love this other person too."

The more awareness of polyamory, the better. Sure, some prejudiced people will spew hate. But more people will be able to put a name to who they are and that polyamory is a viable option, and more allies will be created as people see that polyamorous people are just like everyone else. We're your classmates, your coworkers, your neighbors, your family members... we're everywhere, and there's no good reason poly people should be denied their rights.

Read more »

Posted in: love,media,polyamory

Prudes, Bigots Act Suprised Academia Recognizes Sexual Diversity

As more and more people recognize and discuss gender, sexuality, and relationship diversities (GSRD), uptight prudes and power-hungry bigots scream in frustrated futility as they try to shove everyone into closets, turn off the lights, and stick their fingers in their ears. As they have done many times before, they are bemoaning the fact that university students are actually interested in learning about and discussing GSRD, and so they focus on one or two aspects of the discussion in order to rile up the pearl-clutchers.

Katherine Timpf of CampusReform.org blew the dog   whistle this time. At examiner.com, Alberto Vargas, apparently a compulsive user of scare quotes, wrote a piece headlined with "Yale hosts bestiality and incest sensitivity training."

The title of the workshop was, "Sex: Am I Normal?"

The "sexual diversity" they were referring to, however, had little to do with "alternative" lifestyles, such as homosexuality, lesbianism, bi-sexuality, or transgenderism. Instead, it was about bestiality, masochism, paid sex, and incest.

The sensitivity training was hosted by a "sexologist" who, apparently, also owns a sex shop in West Chester, Pa. Her name is Dr. Jill McDevitt.

Regarding the workshop, "Dr. McDevitt" says:

"It tries to get people to be more sensitive....to sexual diversity. We're not all heterosexual, able-bodied folks who have standard missionary sex."

Does "Alberto Vargas" disagree with that?

Apparently, during the workshop, the attendees (which reportedly numbered from about 40 to 50) were surveyed, anonymously.

The survey showed that 3 percent of those present had engaged in bestiality (sex with animals), 9 percent admitted to having accepted money for sex, and 52 percent had engaged in "consensual pain" during sex.

The details matter, but sensationalistic coverage like this isn't going to include details.

Giuliana Berry, who was apparently the "event director" indicated that the purpose of the workshop was to encourage young people to not "judge" those who engage in such acts. Instead, they are to respond with "understanding" and "compassion".

""People do engage in some of these activities that we believe only, for example, perverts engage in. What the goal is, is to increase compassion for people who may engage in activities that are not what you would personally consider normal.”

What's wrong with that? Why would anyone think it is better for people to sit around stewing over what other people have done or fantasized about in private, or to think they are all alone in the things they have done or fantasized about themselves?

As Katherine Timpf pointed out in her piece, this workshop was just part of what is called, "Yale's Sex Weekend", which is held every other year at Yale.

But the headline "Many different subjects discussed during Yale's Sex Weekend" wouldn't be as attention-grabbing.

Dailymail.co.uk is always good for flashy headline. This one was "Revealed: Yale hosts sex workshops where students admit to bestiality, incest fantasies and prostitution."

And finally there's Erica Ritz's writeup at theblaze.com with the headline "Ivy League Campus Reportedly Hosts Workshop Encouraging ‘Compassion’ & ‘Understanding’ for Bestiality, Incest."

The Yale event was organized by a board of 7 students and sponsored by the Yale Women’s Center, among other groups.  Apparently turnout was limited to about 55 students.

The Daily News has still more shocking information from the lecture:

At Saturday’s workshop, multiple student-submitted discussions topics were about sexual fantasies involving family members. When students shared their thoughts on incest, three responses were related to fantasies about fathers.

Emphasis theirs. If I had to bet one way or the other on this, I would bet that at least three of the people present had some amount of actual consensual sexual exploration or interaction with a family member, probably a sibling.


This blog is about relationship rights for consenting adult humans, but we know sexual experiences are varied. Fantasies are even more diverse. A good university is going to welcome discussions on matters of sexuality, and that is going to include many things. What is shocking is that adults working in media would be surprised by this.

Next we'll read "Students Learning to Make Explosives" in reference to a standard Chemistry course.

Here's a video to give you a better idea of what is really going on...

Read more »

Posted in: academia,allies,boundaries,consanguineous,help,incest,media,prejudice,sex week

Prudes, Bigots Act Suprised Academia Recognizes Sexual Diversity

As more and more people recognize and discuss gender, sexuality, and relationship diversities (GSRD), uptight prudes and power-hungry bigots scream in frustrated futility as they try to shove everyone into closets, turn off the lights, and stick their fingers in their ears. As they have done many times before, they are bemoaning the fact that university students are actually interested in learning about and discussing GSRD, and so they focus on one or two aspects of the discussion in order to rile up the pearl-clutchers.

Katherine Timpf of CampusReform.org blew the dog   whistle this time. At examiner.com, Alberto Vargas, apparently a compulsive user of scare quotes, wrote a piece headlined with "Yale hosts bestiality and incest sensitivity training."

The title of the workshop was, "Sex: Am I Normal?"

The "sexual diversity" they were referring to, however, had little to do with "alternative" lifestyles, such as homosexuality, lesbianism, bi-sexuality, or transgenderism. Instead, it was about bestiality, masochism, paid sex, and incest.

The sensitivity training was hosted by a "sexologist" who, apparently, also owns a sex shop in West Chester, Pa. Her name is Dr. Jill McDevitt.

Regarding the workshop, "Dr. McDevitt" says:

"It tries to get people to be more sensitive....to sexual diversity. We're not all heterosexual, able-bodied folks who have standard missionary sex."

Does "Alberto Vargas" disagree with that?

Apparently, during the workshop, the attendees (which reportedly numbered from about 40 to 50) were surveyed, anonymously.

The survey showed that 3 percent of those present had engaged in bestiality (sex with animals), 9 percent admitted to having accepted money for sex, and 52 percent had engaged in "consensual pain" during sex.

The details matter, but sensationalistic coverage like this isn't going to include details.

Giuliana Berry, who was apparently the "event director" indicated that the purpose of the workshop was to encourage young people to not "judge" those who engage in such acts. Instead, they are to respond with "understanding" and "compassion".

""People do engage in some of these activities that we believe only, for example, perverts engage in. What the goal is, is to increase compassion for people who may engage in activities that are not what you would personally consider normal.”

What's wrong with that? Why would anyone think it is better for people to sit around stewing over what other people have done or fantasized about in private, or to think they are all alone in the things they have done or fantasized about themselves?

As Katherine Timpf pointed out in her piece, this workshop was just part of what is called, "Yale's Sex Weekend", which is held every other year at Yale.

But the headline "Many different subjects discussed during Yale's Sex Weekend" wouldn't be as attention-grabbing.

Dailymail.co.uk is always good for flashy headline. This one was "Revealed: Yale hosts sex workshops where students admit to bestiality, incest fantasies and prostitution."

And finally there's Erica Ritz's writeup at theblaze.com with the headline "Ivy League Campus Reportedly Hosts Workshop Encouraging ‘Compassion’ & ‘Understanding’ for Bestiality, Incest."

The Yale event was organized by a board of 7 students and sponsored by the Yale Women’s Center, among other groups.  Apparently turnout was limited to about 55 students.

The Daily News has still more shocking information from the lecture:

At Saturday’s workshop, multiple student-submitted discussions topics were about sexual fantasies involving family members. When students shared their thoughts on incest, three responses were related to fantasies about fathers.

Emphasis theirs. If I had to bet one way or the other on this, I would bet that at least three of the people present had some amount of actual consensual sexual exploration or interaction with a family member, probably a sibling.


This blog is about relationship rights for consenting adult humans, but we know sexual experiences are varied. Fantasies are even more diverse. A good university is going to welcome discussions on matters of sexuality, and that is going to include many things. What is shocking is that adults working in media would be surprised by this.

Next we'll read "Students Learning to Make Explosives" in reference to a standard Chemistry course.

Here's a video to give you a better idea of what is really going on...

Read more »

Posted in: academia,allies,boundaries,consanguineous,help,incest,media,prejudice,sex week

One Woman Sees Advantages in Polyandry

Jenny Sharpe of Thunder Bay responded to an article on Sister Wives/polygyny with what she sees as the possible advantages of polyandry (one woman, multiple men.)

In times of extreme global population growth and economic uncertainty why not consider “brother-husbands” family units instead?

Since I support full marriage equality, I do think people should be free to choose polyandry as well as any other marital polycule or monogamous combination.

Would it not make sense economically for four men and one woman to pool their economic resources?

Anyone pooling their resources can make sense: a man and a woman, two men, two women, three men, three women, two men and one women, etc.

We have gone from 800-square foot two-bedroom bungalows to palatial mansions in North America as family homes, which would be plenty of room for larger family units. With more adults contributing economically, it would be easier for a family to pay the mortgage, utilities and avoid foreclosure. Economic savings could then be invested in the education of the family’s offspring, or pay for a boat and motor, etc.
This family unit could be reasonably self-sufficient. If a woman chose with care, one handyman husband could replace everything from roof shingles to furnace to maintaining family vehicles. Another might be skilled at gardening or doing household accounts. One might have great prowess in intellectual pursuits and dinner conversations and one could provide musical entertainment at said parties with little need to contract such tasks out.

Sounds great.

These suggestions are often made in jest, but some people are laughing all the way to a better life.

A weakness of the “sister-wife” unit is the large number of children which might result. A “brother-husband” family unit could not produce 16 offspring (as the polygamous family of reality TV fame has done with one man and four wives). Instead, these units would heroically reduce population growth.

They would do it by their own choices, which is fine by me.

We’ve been told it takes a village to raise a child. Surely, children would thrive in the care of five loving adults rather than the traditional two.

It often works that way in deliberate poly situations; certainly better than most "monogamous" situations in which multipe stepparents who are hostile to each other are involved.

Family responsibilities such as taking a vacation day to attend school trips, or missing pay to pick up a sick child from school could more efficiently be juggled by five adults, especially when grandparents live miles away.

This is all true. Polyandry, polygyny, or whatever, let people decide for themselves. An adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,children,polyandry,polygamy,polygyny

One Woman Sees Advantages in Polyandry

Jenny Sharpe of Thunder Bay responded to an article on Sister Wives/polygyny with what she sees as the possible advantages of polyandry (one woman, multiple men.)

In times of extreme global population growth and economic uncertainty why not consider “brother-husbands” family units instead?

Since I support full marriage equality, I do think people should be free to choose polyandry as well as any other marital polycule or monogamous combination.

Would it not make sense economically for four men and one woman to pool their economic resources?

Anyone pooling their resources can make sense: a man and a woman, two men, two women, three men, three women, two men and one women, etc.

We have gone from 800-square foot two-bedroom bungalows to palatial mansions in North America as family homes, which would be plenty of room for larger family units. With more adults contributing economically, it would be easier for a family to pay the mortgage, utilities and avoid foreclosure. Economic savings could then be invested in the education of the family’s offspring, or pay for a boat and motor, etc.
This family unit could be reasonably self-sufficient. If a woman chose with care, one handyman husband could replace everything from roof shingles to furnace to maintaining family vehicles. Another might be skilled at gardening or doing household accounts. One might have great prowess in intellectual pursuits and dinner conversations and one could provide musical entertainment at said parties with little need to contract such tasks out.

Sounds great.

These suggestions are often made in jest, but some people are laughing all the way to a better life.

A weakness of the “sister-wife” unit is the large number of children which might result. A “brother-husband” family unit could not produce 16 offspring (as the polygamous family of reality TV fame has done with one man and four wives). Instead, these units would heroically reduce population growth.

They would do it by their own choices, which is fine by me.

We’ve been told it takes a village to raise a child. Surely, children would thrive in the care of five loving adults rather than the traditional two.

It often works that way in deliberate poly situations; certainly better than most "monogamous" situations in which multipe stepparents who are hostile to each other are involved.

Family responsibilities such as taking a vacation day to attend school trips, or missing pay to pick up a sick child from school could more efficiently be juggled by five adults, especially when grandparents live miles away.

This is all true. Polyandry, polygyny, or whatever, let people decide for themselves. An adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,children,polyandry,polygamy,polygyny

Lisa Ling Puts Polyamory on Television Again

If you check your local listings, you might catch an episode of Our America with Lisa Ling called "I Love You & You...& You."

It is featuring some polyamorous families. Some of the people involved can be found here and here.

Polyamory is getting more and more attention, which is good. The more people see the reality of polyamorous people, the better. It is time people knew that there's nothing wrong (and quite often something very right) about being polyamorous and polyamory is a valid way of life. Yes, there will still be people expressing their ignorance or bigotry about poly people, but in general, visibility will help make things better.

Soon, enough people will realize that the polyamorous or polygamous freedom to marry should not be denied, and that will help move us towards full marriage equality. There is no good reason to deny poly people their rights.

Read more »

Posted in: media,polyamory

Lisa Ling Puts Polyamory on Television Again

If you check your local listings, you might catch an episode of Our America with Lisa Ling called "I Love You & You...& You."

It is featuring some polyamorous families. Some of the people involved can be found here and here.

Polyamory is getting more and more attention, which is good. The more people see the reality of polyamorous people, the better. It is time people knew that there's nothing wrong (and quite often something very right) about being polyamorous and polyamory is a valid way of life. Yes, there will still be people expressing their ignorance or bigotry about poly people, but in general, visibility will help make things better.

Soon, enough people will realize that the polyamorous or polygamous freedom to marry should not be denied, and that will help move us towards full marriage equality. There is no good reason to deny poly people their rights.

Read more »

Posted in: media,polyamory

Gender and Number

This is all too typical…

The flaw in the logic of comparing polygamy and gay marriage is that an individual does not choose to be gay, an individual is born gay. People are not born polygamists.

Of course people are born gay. But people are not “born polygamists?” There are lot of poly people who will tell you or that they are naturally (born) poly. There are other people who are denial but haven’t stuck to celibacy or monogamy, being with many people. Some people are heterosexual, some gay. Some are poly, some monogamous.

Gender and number certainly are two different factors in the freedom to marry. Recognized polygamy has a long and rich history around the world. Marriage between people of the same gender hasn’t, because of so much bigotry against LGBT people. So yes, there is a difference. The freedom to marry one person of the same sex is not the same as being able to marry two or more people of whatever genders. But both of these freedoms to marry are essential to marriage equality. Let’s show some solidarity. The heterosexual person doesn’t truly have the freedom to marry if that person wants to marry two or more. The gay person or the bisexual person doesn’t truly have the freedom to marry if that person wants to marry two or more. This is why we need full marriage equality.

There is no good reason to deny an adult the freedom to marry any and all consenting adults.

Read more »

Posted in: polygamy,same-sex,solidarity

Gender and Number

This is all too typical…

The flaw in the logic of comparing polygamy and gay marriage is that an individual does not choose to be gay, an individual is born gay. People are not born polygamists.

Of course people are born gay. But people are not “born polygamists?” There are lot of poly people who will tell you or that they are naturally (born) poly. There are other people who are denial but haven’t stuck to celibacy or monogamy, being with many people. Some people are heterosexual, some gay. Some are poly, some monogamous.

Gender and number certainly are two different factors in the freedom to marry. Recognized polygamy has a long and rich history around the world. Marriage between people of the same gender hasn’t, because of so much bigotry against LGBT people. So yes, there is a difference. The freedom to marry one person of the same sex is not the same as being able to marry two or more people of whatever genders. But both of these freedoms to marry are essential to marriage equality. Let’s show some solidarity. The heterosexual person doesn’t truly have the freedom to marry if that person wants to marry two or more. The gay person or the bisexual person doesn’t truly have the freedom to marry if that person wants to marry two or more. This is why we need full marriage equality.

There is no good reason to deny an adult the freedom to marry any and all consenting adults.

Read more »

Posted in: polygamy,same-sex,solidarity

"Ick" Is Not a Justification For Bigoted Laws

Bridgette P. LaVictoire says the “ick” factor should not be used against consenting adults in their sex lives.

A large part of the reason for people- especially men- to push back against homosexuality- especially gay male sexuality- has to do with the ‘ick factor’. That is, to many a straight man, gay sex is icky. It’s gross. It’s disgusting.

She explains…

The thing is, I find heterosexual sex to be as gross and icky as many of those who find homosexual sex to be gross and icky find that to be. In other words- the idea of a woman- any woman- having sex with a man is disturbing to the extreme. I already covered part of this in another piece I did, but it comes out flatly that I am grossed out when I see a woman and a man having sex; I feel disturbed when I see women holding hands with men; and I just find it plain out wrong when women kiss men.

Later…

None of this really gives me a rational basis for arguing that, say, heterosexual sex is wrong and should be outlawed, or that relationships between women and men should not exist. Just because I find heterosexuality to be gross or men to be horrible does not mean that I must impose my views on others, or try to force society to accept a world where women are superior to men and that lesbianism is above all other forms of sexuality. While I feel those things, that is not an argument. It is an emotional response.

Thank you, Bridgette P. LaVictoire. Read her whole explanation. The “ick factor” should not be used to deny consenting adults their right to love, sex, and marriage regardless of gender, number, or relation.

Read more »

Posted in: law,marriage equality,prejudice,solidarity

Down with H8 - Up With Marriage Equality For All

With so many people filing papers with the US Supreme Court to argue against DOMA and Prop H8, I wanted to bump up this old entry because it is still relevant...




It is almost time for closing arguments in the trail against California Proposition 8, or “H8”. In the Washington Post, John D. Podesta and Robert A. Levy express their hope that a federal court will overturn Proposition 8. They write about gay couples, and I agree that gay couples should have the freedom to marry. However, I am disappointed that they do not express concern for other people looking for marriage equality.

Although we serve, respectively, as president of a progressive and chairman of a libertarian think tank, we are not joining the foundation's advisory board to present a "bipartisan" front. Rather, we have come together in a nonpartisan fashion because the principle of equality before the law transcends the left-right divide and cuts to the core of our nation's character. This is not about politics; it's about an indispensable right vested in all Americans.

I agree, and that is why we need full marriage quality.

As the country evolved, the meaning of one small word -- "all" -- has evolved as well. Our nation's Founders reaffirmed in the Declaration of Independence the self-evident truth that "all Men are created equal," and our Pledge of Allegiance concludes with the simple and definitive words "liberty and justice for all." Still, we have struggled mightily since our independence, often through our courts, to ensure that liberty and justice is truly available to all Americans.

All should mean all.

Our history will soon be written by young people who are seizing the reins from the baby boomers. They seem prepared to reject laws that serve no purpose other than to deny two committed and loving individuals the right to join in a mutually reinforcing marital relationship.

I agree with this, except for the unnecessary restriction of “two.” Committed and loving individuals, no matter how many, regardless of gender or blood relation, should have the right to marriage. How about showing some solidarity? While Kris Perry and Sandy Stier should be able to marry and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo should be able to marry, so should Linda, Melissa, and Matthew. Let’s fight so that all of them will get the right to marry. Do not participate in the oppression of triads, groups, sibling couples, parent-adult child couples, and others who should have the right to marry.

Read more »

Posted in: California,courts,freedom to marry,law,marriage equality,Proposition 8,solidarity

Down with H8 - Up With Marriage Equality For All

With so many people filing papers with the US Supreme Court to argue against DOMA and Prop H8, I wanted to bump up this old entry because it is still relevant...




It is almost time for closing arguments in the trail against California Proposition 8, or “H8”. In the Washington Post, John D. Podesta and Robert A. Levy express their hope that a federal court will overturn Proposition 8. They write about gay couples, and I agree that gay couples should have the freedom to marry. However, I am disappointed that they do not express concern for other people looking for marriage equality.

Although we serve, respectively, as president of a progressive and chairman of a libertarian think tank, we are not joining the foundation's advisory board to present a "bipartisan" front. Rather, we have come together in a nonpartisan fashion because the principle of equality before the law transcends the left-right divide and cuts to the core of our nation's character. This is not about politics; it's about an indispensable right vested in all Americans.

I agree, and that is why we need full marriage quality.

As the country evolved, the meaning of one small word -- "all" -- has evolved as well. Our nation's Founders reaffirmed in the Declaration of Independence the self-evident truth that "all Men are created equal," and our Pledge of Allegiance concludes with the simple and definitive words "liberty and justice for all." Still, we have struggled mightily since our independence, often through our courts, to ensure that liberty and justice is truly available to all Americans.

All should mean all.

Our history will soon be written by young people who are seizing the reins from the baby boomers. They seem prepared to reject laws that serve no purpose other than to deny two committed and loving individuals the right to join in a mutually reinforcing marital relationship.

I agree with this, except for the unnecessary restriction of “two.” Committed and loving individuals, no matter how many, regardless of gender or blood relation, should have the right to marriage. How about showing some solidarity? While Kris Perry and Sandy Stier should be able to marry and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo should be able to marry, so should Linda, Melissa, and Matthew. Let’s fight so that all of them will get the right to marry. Do not participate in the oppression of triads, groups, sibling couples, parent-adult child couples, and others who should have the right to marry.

Read more »

Posted in: California,courts,freedom to marry,law,marriage equality,Proposition 8,solidarity

Genetic Sexual Attraction is Not a Synonym For Incest

"Proclamations of the Red Queen" at gaynz.com had an article with the title "Genetic Sexual Attraction: The New Face of Incest"

When we think of incest, we instinctively recoil from horrific images of frightened children cowering from parental or related sexual predators. But what about “consensual adult incest’? Is it any different?

Of course it is. Consanguinamory is very different than abuse.

In Gay Times, John Marrs discussed the matter with two formerly estranged gay and bisexual brothers. One had been adopted out of his family of origin when his parents divorced as a child and due to adult adoption reforms, was able to track down his family of origin and meet his parents and little brother, now a seventeen year old teenager. Two years later, the older brother came out to his younger sibling…who responded by having sex with him.

Good. There could have been any number of negative responses, including physical violence. Instead, they made love.

Marrs describes this as a psychological condition called ‘genetic sexual attraction’ and it is what sometimes occurs when siblings or parents and children haven’t developed psychological and behavioural distance as a result of adoption, fostering or other estrangement from socialisation and interaction within family relationships. GSA has become an unintentional byproduct of adult adoption reforms and consequent parental or sibling reunions and may be either straight or same-sex. 

Which is why GSA is not "new," it is just that the conditions that foster it are more common now.

So, are GSA and incest different?

Yes! First of all, GSA has to do with feelings. Incest is a physical act. GSA may or may not lead to sex or lovemaking. I've also noted that GSA-initiated consanguinamory is different from sociological incest.

The author is not an ally and lacks solidarity, unfortunately...

Look, I consider myself a sexual liberal. I supported the decriminalisation of sex work and I do not believe that consensual sadomasochism should be treated as a form of ‘aggravated assault’ in heavy-duty instances as occurred in the United Kingdom after “Operation Spanner” in the late nineties. However, I draw the line there. Beyond that lies nonconsensual paraphilias like pedophilia, zoophilia and necrophilia, which shouldn’t be tolerated.

Okay, but we're talking about consenting adult persons. Why shouldn't they be included in relationship rights?

Admittedly, I also have another, more personal reason for opposing any decriminalisation of CAI. It’s all very well for those who experience GSA to counsel the rest of us to get over our feelings of revulsion and abhorrence of their sexual behaviour, but what about gay male incest survivors?

Uh, that's abuse. That isn't consensual sex between adults. He might as well say that because of stranger rape, all casual sex should be illegal.

Most consensual incest is not initiated through GSA. GSA is a powerful set of feelings that MAY lead to "incest" or not. And, like I said, GSA is not new. So GSA is not a "new face of incest."

An adult, regardless of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults, without fear of prosecution, bullying, or discrimination. Equality just for some is not equality! Show solidarity!

Read more »

Posted in: bisexual,boundaries,brother-brother,coming out,consanguineous,family reaction,GSA,incest,LGBT,myths,prejudice,reunion,siblings

Genetic Sexual Attraction is Not a Synonym For Incest

"Proclamations of the Red Queen" at gaynz.com had an article with the title "Genetic Sexual Attraction: The New Face of Incest"

When we think of incest, we instinctively recoil from horrific images of frightened children cowering from parental or related sexual predators. But what about “consensual adult incest’? Is it any different?

Of course it is. Consanguinamory is very different than abuse.

In Gay Times, John Marrs discussed the matter with two formerly estranged gay and bisexual brothers. One had been adopted out of his family of origin when his parents divorced as a child and due to adult adoption reforms, was able to track down his family of origin and meet his parents and little brother, now a seventeen year old teenager. Two years later, the older brother came out to his younger sibling…who responded by having sex with him.

Good. There could have been any number of negative responses, including physical violence. Instead, they made love.

Marrs describes this as a psychological condition called ‘genetic sexual attraction’ and it is what sometimes occurs when siblings or parents and children haven’t developed psychological and behavioural distance as a result of adoption, fostering or other estrangement from socialisation and interaction within family relationships. GSA has become an unintentional byproduct of adult adoption reforms and consequent parental or sibling reunions and may be either straight or same-sex. 

Which is why GSA is not "new," it is just that the conditions that foster it are more common now.

So, are GSA and incest different?

Yes! First of all, GSA has to do with feelings. Incest is a physical act. GSA may or may not lead to sex or lovemaking. I've also noted that GSA-initiated consanguinamory is different from sociological incest.

The author is not an ally and lacks solidarity, unfortunately...

Look, I consider myself a sexual liberal. I supported the decriminalisation of sex work and I do not believe that consensual sadomasochism should be treated as a form of ‘aggravated assault’ in heavy-duty instances as occurred in the United Kingdom after “Operation Spanner” in the late nineties. However, I draw the line there. Beyond that lies nonconsensual paraphilias like pedophilia, zoophilia and necrophilia, which shouldn’t be tolerated.

Okay, but we're talking about consenting adult persons. Why shouldn't they be included in relationship rights?

Admittedly, I also have another, more personal reason for opposing any decriminalisation of CAI. It’s all very well for those who experience GSA to counsel the rest of us to get over our feelings of revulsion and abhorrence of their sexual behaviour, but what about gay male incest survivors?

Uh, that's abuse. That isn't consensual sex between adults. He might as well say that because of stranger rape, all casual sex should be illegal.

Most consensual incest is not initiated through GSA. GSA is a powerful set of feelings that MAY lead to "incest" or not. And, like I said, GSA is not new. So GSA is not a "new face of incest."

An adult, regardless of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults, without fear of prosecution, bullying, or discrimination. Equality just for some is not equality! Show solidarity!

Read more »

Posted in: bisexual,boundaries,brother-brother,coming out,consanguineous,family reaction,GSA,incest,LGBT,myths,prejudice,reunion,siblings

Legalized Marijuana: State Attorneys General Look to Washington, DC

Attorney General Eric Holder

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has been asked by the Attorney General of Colorado for an indication of how the DOJ will treat the marijuana legalization initiatives passed into law by Colorado and Washington.  Holder has promised to address the issue, "soon".

The USAG made the promise at a national conference of Attorneys General in response to a question posed to him by Colorado Attorney General John Suthers.  Holder indicated that the DOJ was working on formulating the policy response and that it was complicated.

Although marijuana has been legalized in two states, and is legal for medical purposes in a third of the states and the District of Colombia, it remains classified as an illegal "controlled substance" under federal law.  Thus, businesses within states that have legalized pot are wary of going too far down the road with the development of industry infrastructure if the DEA can, at any time, come crashing in and shut them down.

Although marijuana has been a key component in the federal government's 3-decade long "war-on-drugs", the popularity of marijuana among the mainstream citizenry, and its success at the polls, has given the feds pause.  Last fall's successful outright legalization initiatives has brought the matter to a head.  Conflicts between federal and state laws must be resolved in our federalist system of governance.

We here at the Law Blogger expect some sort of marijuana-equivalent of the "don't ask; don't tell" policy.  For the industry, this will be like getting served a bowl of luke warm soup.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: Attorney General Eric Holder,Attorney General John Suthers,Colorado,marijuana