Results of Surveying Polyamorous People

Over a year ago, the largest survey to date of polyamorous people was conducted by Loving More (http://www.lovemore.com/),with the endorsement of the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom https://www.ncsfreedom.org/) (NCSF). Here's what came of it.

Based upon these survey results, the [polyamorous community] is significantly more educated, with a Bachelor’s degree being the most commonly-held degree, while a high school diploma is the most commonly-held degree among the general US population.

On the polyamous freedom to marry....

LM 2012 respondents were asked, “If it were legal, would you be open to being married to more than one person concurrently?” Nearly two-thirds (65.9%) of respondents answered “yes,” 19.7% answered “not sure,” and 14.4% answered “no.”

Poly people should have their right to marry and to have those marriages treated equally under the law.

Again to no one’s surprise, LM respondents reported more frequent sexual activity and with more partners than the general population. This was true across genders, lifespan, and behavioral sexual orientations between the LM population and the general population.

Poly people got it goin' on! Unfortunately, poly people face discrimination...

LM respondents were significantly more likely (28.5%) to report having experienced some form of discrimination compared to the general US population (5.5%) and more than twice as likely than African Americans within the US population (12.8%). These results were similarly significant when analyzed by gender and sexual behavioral orientation. Ambiguity about having experienced discrimination is far more common among the LM population (18.4%) as compared to the general US population (0.13%) and among African Americans surveyed in the GSS (0.0%).

The Summary says...

Compared with the general adult population represented by the GSS, the LM sample is younger, more educated, happier, healthier, and more sexually active with more people.

I've said it before... polyamory isn't for everyone, but it is for some. Many people thrive in polyamorous relationships. Poly people should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.

Read more »

Posted in: freedom to marry,polyamory,prejudice,science

Results of Surveying Polyamorous People

Over a year ago, the largest survey to date of polyamorous people was conducted by Loving More (http://www.lovemore.com/),with the endorsement of the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom https://www.ncsfreedom.org/) (NCSF). Here's what came of it.

Based upon these survey results, the [polyamorous community] is significantly more educated, with a Bachelor’s degree being the most commonly-held degree, while a high school diploma is the most commonly-held degree among the general US population.

On the polyamous freedom to marry....

LM 2012 respondents were asked, “If it were legal, would you be open to being married to more than one person concurrently?” Nearly two-thirds (65.9%) of respondents answered “yes,” 19.7% answered “not sure,” and 14.4% answered “no.”

Poly people should have their right to marry and to have those marriages treated equally under the law.

Again to no one’s surprise, LM respondents reported more frequent sexual activity and with more partners than the general population. This was true across genders, lifespan, and behavioral sexual orientations between the LM population and the general population.

Poly people got it goin' on! Unfortunately, poly people face discrimination...

LM respondents were significantly more likely (28.5%) to report having experienced some form of discrimination compared to the general US population (5.5%) and more than twice as likely than African Americans within the US population (12.8%). These results were similarly significant when analyzed by gender and sexual behavioral orientation. Ambiguity about having experienced discrimination is far more common among the LM population (18.4%) as compared to the general US population (0.13%) and among African Americans surveyed in the GSS (0.0%).

The Summary says...

Compared with the general adult population represented by the GSS, the LM sample is younger, more educated, happier, healthier, and more sexually active with more people.

I've said it before... polyamory isn't for everyone, but it is for some. Many people thrive in polyamorous relationships. Poly people should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.

Read more »

Posted in: freedom to marry,polyamory,prejudice,science

Equality For All

P. Sufenas Virius Lupus, a “queer polytheist, author, educator, and poet,” wrote in a column what I consider to be a good call to solidarity for sexual freedom under the law, whether it can be proven that someone is “born this way” or not…

I would hope that the eventual goal of queer activism is not that gay and straight people have equal rights to marriage benefits, employment, adoption and child custody, service in the armed forces, and freedom from discrimination. Certainly all of those goals are admirable and important; but, thinking in those terms just creates further categories of persons that can be potentially limiting. What about bisexuals? What about polyamorous people? What about gender-variant people? While some of these groups might get knock-on benefits from the other equality measures, there are bound to be oversights and misconstructions in doing so.

I actually hope that the eventual positive effect of queer activism is a change in society so that no one is ever bullied for their gender presentation, mannerisms, interests, or romantic attractions; that "gay" is no longer an insult and a synonym for "anything I don't like"; and, for example, that a male who has dated women for his entire life can one day seek out the romantic and sexual companionship of another male without stigma from any corner, nor pressure to identify as one thing or another, and that his doing so is simply yet another option available to a person, like getting one's hair cut or driving a motorcycle.

To put it in more specific terms: the issue isn't so much that sexual orientation is or is not a choice, nor that it is nor is not something inborn, but instead that its origins shouldn't matter because there is no sensible reason (by which I mean scientific reason—but I'd go as far as to say theological reason as well) that sexual orientation or gender identity should be a factor for scorn or discrimination amongst humans.

As I like to say, an adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults. Why should anyone spend any time trying to stop other people? And why should anyone spend any time trying to argue against the reality or the worthiness of bisexuality, gender variation, polyamory, consanguinamory, Genetic Sexual Attraction, or anything involving someone else’s identity, orientation, or attraction to other adults? Explaining the possible origins of something that makes someone different is not going to get bigots to suddenly stop being bigots. Throwing others under the bus and jumping through hoops will not change bigots either. Rather, we should all be in solidarity with each other and show open-minded people that the world will not end if we have freedom and equality. All of the nosey, judgmental, and controlling people out there should focus on making themselves better people, and being better in their own relationships. Maybe they will when everyone else has come to the side of equality.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,bisexual,boundaries,LGBT,marriage equality,myths,persecution,polyamory,prejudice,solidarity

Equality For All

P. Sufenas Virius Lupus, a “queer polytheist, author, educator, and poet,” wrote in a column what I consider to be a good call to solidarity for sexual freedom under the law, whether it can be proven that someone is “born this way” or not…

I would hope that the eventual goal of queer activism is not that gay and straight people have equal rights to marriage benefits, employment, adoption and child custody, service in the armed forces, and freedom from discrimination. Certainly all of those goals are admirable and important; but, thinking in those terms just creates further categories of persons that can be potentially limiting. What about bisexuals? What about polyamorous people? What about gender-variant people? While some of these groups might get knock-on benefits from the other equality measures, there are bound to be oversights and misconstructions in doing so.

I actually hope that the eventual positive effect of queer activism is a change in society so that no one is ever bullied for their gender presentation, mannerisms, interests, or romantic attractions; that "gay" is no longer an insult and a synonym for "anything I don't like"; and, for example, that a male who has dated women for his entire life can one day seek out the romantic and sexual companionship of another male without stigma from any corner, nor pressure to identify as one thing or another, and that his doing so is simply yet another option available to a person, like getting one's hair cut or driving a motorcycle.

To put it in more specific terms: the issue isn't so much that sexual orientation is or is not a choice, nor that it is nor is not something inborn, but instead that its origins shouldn't matter because there is no sensible reason (by which I mean scientific reason—but I'd go as far as to say theological reason as well) that sexual orientation or gender identity should be a factor for scorn or discrimination amongst humans.

As I like to say, an adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults. Why should anyone spend any time trying to stop other people? And why should anyone spend any time trying to argue against the reality or the worthiness of bisexuality, gender variation, polyamory, consanguinamory, Genetic Sexual Attraction, or anything involving someone else’s identity, orientation, or attraction to other adults? Explaining the possible origins of something that makes someone different is not going to get bigots to suddenly stop being bigots. Throwing others under the bus and jumping through hoops will not change bigots either. Rather, we should all be in solidarity with each other and show open-minded people that the world will not end if we have freedom and equality. All of the nosey, judgmental, and controlling people out there should focus on making themselves better people, and being better in their own relationships. Maybe they will when everyone else has come to the side of equality.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,bisexual,boundaries,LGBT,marriage equality,myths,persecution,polyamory,prejudice,solidarity

Season Finale for VH1 Marriage Series

Emily Exton at vh1.com tells us what is coming up tomorrow on I’m Married To A…

Live-in couple Ali and Lorne use their home of San Francisco as a playground for “second base parties,” which is likely not something you took part in back in your Little League days. “I just have an insatiable appetite for sex,” Ali explains. “So I like to date like three guys at a time because then no one person is exhausted.” And everyone is okay with that?

It's not for everyone, but it is for some.

On the season finale of I’m Married To A…, we meet a polyamorous couple, who explain how they step outside their relationship to meet their physical needs, ultimately allowing themselves to fall in love with multiple people to capitalize on the “abundance” of emotion they have to spare. To practice this lifestyle, honesty is the best policy, and making sure you define certain feelings and specific “bases” in the same way is extremely important. 

Television producers like to focus on the sex, but for most people in a polyamorous or an open relationship (and no, those are not synonyms) there's a lot more to it than having sex with other people. Sometimes, it is a matter of personalities or shared interests.

It is good to see a series showing that not all marriages or relationships have to look the same.

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,media,open,polyamory,swinging

Season Finale for VH1 Marriage Series

Emily Exton at vh1.com tells us what is coming up tomorrow on I’m Married To A…

Live-in couple Ali and Lorne use their home of San Francisco as a playground for “second base parties,” which is likely not something you took part in back in your Little League days. “I just have an insatiable appetite for sex,” Ali explains. “So I like to date like three guys at a time because then no one person is exhausted.” And everyone is okay with that?

It's not for everyone, but it is for some.

On the season finale of I’m Married To A…, we meet a polyamorous couple, who explain how they step outside their relationship to meet their physical needs, ultimately allowing themselves to fall in love with multiple people to capitalize on the “abundance” of emotion they have to spare. To practice this lifestyle, honesty is the best policy, and making sure you define certain feelings and specific “bases” in the same way is extremely important. 

Television producers like to focus on the sex, but for most people in a polyamorous or an open relationship (and no, those are not synonyms) there's a lot more to it than having sex with other people. Sometimes, it is a matter of personalities or shared interests.

It is good to see a series showing that not all marriages or relationships have to look the same.

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,media,open,polyamory,swinging

Endearing Ally Performs Song for Equality

Wouldn't you like to have someone like this supporting your love? Wouldn't you like to be someone like this?

Read more »

Posted in: allies,family reaction,freedom to marry,LGBT,love,same-sex

National Security vs Individual Privacy in the Big Data Era

By:  Timothy P. Flynn

This post is about the rights of a now famous arrest warrant fugitive, and about each of our rights to maintain private electronic data.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees rights to all private citizens:

...to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This important amendment arose, in part, as a response to abuses of power during the American Revolution associated with the reviled "writ of assistance"; a general search warrant that allowed the King's soldiers to toss your home with or without reason.

Fast forward to the 21st Century, which opened with unprecedented foreign terrorist attacks on our soil, and we see that our "papers and effects" have been digitized.  Most of us now have fairly robust electronic profiles as opposed to actual "papers and effects".

Now, 13-years into the e-Century, and a dozen years after the fateful 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, the federal government wants, and apparently gets, direct access to the Big Data of our private lives.  This access has been granted in the name of national security and is backed by the Patriot Act, and other powerful national security-based federal laws.

The extradition and federal prosecution of  Edward Snowden will test these opposing concepts of liberty and national security in the digital age.  Like the cases of Julian Assange and Aaron Swartz, Snowden's revelations about the federal government's snooping is becoming a digital clarion call.

Snowden, a former NSA contractor, made some significant disclosures about what the NSA has been doing, to the Guardian newspaper in London earlier in the month.  The feds have been hunting him with an international arrest warrant ever since for violations of the Espionage Act.

Apparently, Mr. Snowden is now on the move, internationally, as in Jason Bourne style.  Only this is real, not fiction.  Once the United States has Mr. Snowden either extradited or rendered back to the US, he will face criminal charges in federal court in Virginia for leaking the NSA's digital secrets to the media.

Since its inception in 1917 up to the current administration, Presidents have only charged 3 individuals with violating the Espionage Act.  President Obama has prosecuted 6 individuals under the Act.

What does this tell us about the balance between our rights to have our data secure from the prying eyes of the government, and the governments duty to protect our shores from invasion?  Can both interests be served simultaneously?

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: Aaron Swartz,Big Data,Edward Snowden,Espionage Act of 1917,Fourth Amendment,Juian Assange,NSA,privacy rights

Cousin Marriages From a Genetic Perspective

A blog about gene expression at Discover Magazine took a look at “the individual & social risks of cousin marriage,” and it even had maps.

In the United States there’s a stereotype of cousin marriage being the practice of backward hillbillies or royalty. For typical middle class folk it’s relatively taboo, with different legal regimes by state. The history of cousin marriage in the West has been one of ups & downs. Marriage between close relatives was not unknown in antiquity. The pagan emperor Claudius married his niece Agrippina the Younger, while the Christian emperor Heraclius married his niece Martina. Marriage between cousins were presumably more common.

How did things change?

With the rise in the West of the Roman Catholic Church marriages between cousins were officially more constrained. Adam Bellow argues in In Praise of Nepotism: A Natural History that there’s a material explanation for this: the Roman church used its power over the sacrament of marriage to control the aristocracy.

That’s interesting.

More precisely the coefficient of kinship between two first cousins is 1/8. That means that at any given locus there’s a 1 out of 8 chance that the two individuals will have alleles which are identical by descent, which means that the genetic variant comes down from the same person in the family line.

If the allele is “good,” that is, totally normal/wild type, not associated with any pathology, then we’re in the clear. That’s why most first cousin marriages don’t produce children who are monsters. What a first cousin marriage does is change the odds. How you present these odds matters a great deal in how scary they sound. If I told you than the chance of first cousins having children with a birth defect is 4-7%, vs. 3-4% for a non-consanguineous couple, it might not sound that bad. But if I told you that the odds of having a birth defect is ~50% greater, then it sounds worse.

He got more technical and moved on to discuss Muslims in Britain.

Read more »

Posted in: consanguineous,cousins,Islam,religion,science,UK

Having What the Royals Had

David Dobbs wrote at National Geographic about consanguineous sex among royals.

Royal incest, notes historian Joanne Carando, was "not only accepted but even encouraged" in Hawaii as an exclusive royal privilege.

In fact, while virtually every culture in recorded history has held sibling or parent-child couplings taboo, royalty have been exempted in many societies, including ancient Egypt, Inca Peru, and, at times, Central Africa, Mexico, and Thailand. And while royal families in Europe avoided sibling incest, many, including the Hohenzollerns of Prussia, the Bourbons of France, and the British royal family, often married cousins. The Spanish Habsburgs, who ruled for nearly 200 years, frequently married among close relatives.

Sadly, those who do as the royals did are now often prosecuted and treated as second class citizens.

He has the obligatory “this can mess up your genes” talk included, noting…

Siblings share half their genes on average, as do parents and offspring. First cousins' genomes overlap 12.5 percent. Matings between close relatives can raise the danger that harmful recessive genes, especially if combined repeatedly through generations, will match up in the offspring, leading to elevated chances of health or developmental problems—perhaps Tut's partially cleft palate and congenitally deformed foot or Charles's small stature and impotence.

Any child can have health problems. But what doesn’t get talked about enough are the potential positives. Dobbs, thankfully, writes…

And the hazards, while real, are not absolute. Even the high rates of genetic overlap generated in the offspring of sibling unions, for instance, can create more healthy children than sick ones.

Thank you.

Yet affection sometimes drives these bonds. Bingham learned that even after King Kamehameha III of Hawaii accepted Christian rule, he slept for several years with his sister, Princess Nahi'ena'ena—pleasing their elders but disturbing the missionaries. They did it, says historian Carando, because they loved each other.

Imagine that. Some family members love each other in ways that include sexual. That certainly doesn’t fit the bigoted stereotype of “rape and incest.” Nonrelatives can rape or sexually abuse, and relatives can lovingly engage in consensual sex. The problem isn't consanguineous sex; the problem is rape and abuse. Loving, consensual, consanguineous sex should not be kept buried with the royals of the past. It should be brought into the open and enjoyed by all who want to share the tradition old as time.

Read more »

Posted in: Africa,children,consanguineous,Europe,Hawaii,Latin America,science

Having What the Royals Had

David Dobbs wrote at National Geographic about consanguineous sex among royals.

Royal incest, notes historian Joanne Carando, was "not only accepted but even encouraged" in Hawaii as an exclusive royal privilege.

In fact, while virtually every culture in recorded history has held sibling or parent-child couplings taboo, royalty have been exempted in many societies, including ancient Egypt, Inca Peru, and, at times, Central Africa, Mexico, and Thailand. And while royal families in Europe avoided sibling incest, many, including the Hohenzollerns of Prussia, the Bourbons of France, and the British royal family, often married cousins. The Spanish Habsburgs, who ruled for nearly 200 years, frequently married among close relatives.

Sadly, those who do as the royals did are now often prosecuted and treated as second class citizens.

He has the obligatory “this can mess up your genes” talk included, noting…

Siblings share half their genes on average, as do parents and offspring. First cousins' genomes overlap 12.5 percent. Matings between close relatives can raise the danger that harmful recessive genes, especially if combined repeatedly through generations, will match up in the offspring, leading to elevated chances of health or developmental problems—perhaps Tut's partially cleft palate and congenitally deformed foot or Charles's small stature and impotence.

Any child can have health problems. But what doesn’t get talked about enough are the potential positives. Dobbs, thankfully, writes…

And the hazards, while real, are not absolute. Even the high rates of genetic overlap generated in the offspring of sibling unions, for instance, can create more healthy children than sick ones.

Thank you.

Yet affection sometimes drives these bonds. Bingham learned that even after King Kamehameha III of Hawaii accepted Christian rule, he slept for several years with his sister, Princess Nahi'ena'ena—pleasing their elders but disturbing the missionaries. They did it, says historian Carando, because they loved each other.

Imagine that. Some family members love each other in ways that include sexual. That certainly doesn’t fit the bigoted stereotype of “rape and incest.” Nonrelatives can rape or sexually abuse, and relatives can lovingly engage in consensual sex. The problem isn't consanguineous sex; the problem is rape and abuse. Loving, consensual, consanguineous sex should not be kept buried with the royals of the past. It should be brought into the open and enjoyed by all who want to share the tradition old as time.

Read more »

Posted in: Africa,children,consanguineous,Europe,Hawaii,Latin America,science

Detroit: Too Big to Fail?

Here in the 313, we're used to having it rough.  This is a place where nothing comes easy.  Detroit has been existing within the shadow of a lost world-class status since the riots in 1967.

Now that Washington D.C. lawyer and Snyder-appointed emergency manager Kevin Orr has settled-in and taken a look around here in the "D", it's starting to look like this appointment may have come too late.

There is a mountain of things to correct; the deep oaken roots of 100-years of corruption need to be pulled out of the Detroit soil; it is proving very difficult.  The prospect of the largest municipal bankruptcy in United States history is now looming large; the consequences of the decades of mismanagement are coming home to roost.

Mr. Orr is zeroing-in on municipal pensioners, municipal employees, and an overall 20-billion dollar debt restructuring package.  If the restructuring fails, this mess will be placed in the hands of a federal bankruptcy judge; the state problem goes federal.

Now that the battle lines have been drawn, the unions, of course, are squawking.  They claim a multi-million dollar war chest to fight all of Mr. Orr's decisions.  Not surprisingly, none of Detroit's municipal workers want their pensions or their health care benefits cut.  Orr says these perks need to be compressed to stop the swelling of an out-of-control deficit of a non-productive municipality.

As a small business with some 20 employees here in the suburbs, we here at the Law Blogger must admit that, while we are life-long Detroiters, it is irritating to hear the sabre-rattling unions and pension managers make these legal threats when we have seen years of lavish and outlandish junkets along with a strong whiff of corrosive privilege.  Nobody involved in a City of Detroit pension needs to take a trip to Hawaii on the City's dime; under these financial straights, that is just plain wrong.

In sum, Detroit is just a promise gone bust; gone way past the point of no return.  Now an outsider, a Washington D.C. lawyer, must try to get us our city back.

What can we do, what can you do, to help...?

Post Script:  On July 19, 2013, Detroit's Emergency Manager filed a petition under Chapter 9 of the US Bankruptcy Code.  Despite the Michigan Attorney General's challenge to the petition, the Court of Appeals said the petition could proceed, and the Bankruptcy Judge in Detroit has asserted jurisdiction over the case and has stopped all challenges in state court forums.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: bankruptcy,Detroit,Governor Rick Snyder,Kevin Orr,lawyer

SCOTUS: Your Silence Can Be Used Against You

We here at the Law Blogger have some friends among the ranks of state prosecutors and law enforcement.  From time to time, we are treated to the "nuts-and-bolts" of the cold-case process from these professionals.

This post involves the ultimate resolution of a cold murder case and the result of that case now affects all citizens in their [hopefully occasional] interactions with law enforcement.  SCOTUS ruled yesterday that the silence of an accused, during questioning from the police, can be used against the suspect at his trial unless the person affirmatively asserts his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

In Salinas v Texas, the defendant was voluntarily discussing the 1992 murders of two brothers when he accompanied police to the station.  He was not under arrest at the time, and continued to discuss his knowledge of the circumstances of the murders at the police station; no Miranda warnings were supplied advising him of his constitutional right to remain silent.

After answering all the detectives' questions, Mr. Salinas suddenly fell silent when asked whether the shot gun casings found at the murder scene matched his shotgun.  His demeanor turned clammy and nervous; Salinas clammed-up.

Now, normally, your silence cannot be used against you in court.  In this case, however, Salinas' trial featured evidence from police testimony about his demeanor and silence during the shotgun line of questions at the police station.

The now-convicted double murder defendant appealed his case all the way to the SCOTUS and just lost yesterday.  Each of us lost a little sliver of our 5th Amendment right to remain silent along with Salinas' affirmed conviction.

The plurality decision in this case seems to split a hair relative to our constitutional rights while being interviewed or, by extension, interrogated by law enforcement.  SCOTUS held in this case that, in order to invoke his constitutional right to remain silent, Salinas had to affirmatively assert his right to silence.  Since he did not do so while discussing the murders with the police, his conviction was affirmed.

The lesson in all this: ordinary citizens must keep-up with the nuances in the law in order to properly assert their constitutional rights.  Put another way: with regard to our right to silence, this ruling takes a "use it or lose it" approach.

Michigan Connection:  now-retired Wayne County Assistant Prosecutor and appellate specialist [i.e. legend] Timothy Baughman filed as an amicus on behalf of Wayne County.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Read more »

Posted in: criminal defense lawyer,Fifth Amendment,right to silence,Salinas v Texas,SCOTUS

Dan Savage Column Missing Very Important Details

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

No Acronym Seems To Yodel writes in...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Savage responded...

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

The tone seems less than supportive of consanguinamory.

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

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

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

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

Read more »

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

Dan Savage Column Missing Very Important Details

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

No Acronym Seems To Yodel writes in...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Savage responded...

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

The tone seems less than supportive of consanguinamory.

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

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

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

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

Read more »

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

US Supreme Court Should Make Bold Move For Equality

The US Supreme Court has heard arguments about both DOMA and Prop H8 and could issue a ruling any day now. DOMA denies same-gender marriages recognition at the national level and has been very problematic, including for members of the US military and immigrants. Prop H8 took away the same-gender freedom to marry in California. Cases about both laws had been making their way through the courts and are now at the Supreme Court. There are many possible outcomes, some seen as more likely than others. It is possible that the Court could end up ruling next month, in June, to strike down DOMA so that same-gender marriages granted in states that currently have them will be recognized by the federal government, and letting lower court decisions striking down Prop H8 stand, so that California will again have the limited same-gender freedom to marry. It is also possible the Court may rule in a way that brings about the limited same-gender freedom to marry nationwide.

We want the US Supreme Court to make the best possible ruling, which is to recognize relationship rights, including full marriage equality, for all adults nationwide.

The Court should rule that…

An adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, harassment, or discrimination.

There are many reasons why the Court should do this.

1. There are American adults, and in some cases their children, suffering right now because of discriminatory laws preventing them from marrying or even just being together. If we really care about children, equality, stability, security, and valuing family, we will let people decide for themselves what kind of relationships they will have, including marriage, if they want to marry.

2. As Court precedent states, marriage is a fundamental civil right.

3. As Court precedent states, consensual sex is part of the liberty protected by due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

4. As Court precedent states, when the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, the usual deference to the legislature is inappropriate, and the Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.

5. Freedom of association for consenting adults is a basic Constitutional right. Just as there is no good reason to ban interracial relationships or marriage, there is no good reason to ban same-gender relationships or marriages, polyamorous relationships or polygamous marriages, or consanguinamorous relationships or consanguineous marriages. There is no good reason to limit marriage to narrowly exogamous heterosexual couples.

6. Freedom of religion is a basic Constitutional right. One group’s religion should not deny the rights of other consenting adults to be together or marry. Conversely, some religions recognize or promote marriages currently banned under laws in most or all fifty states, depending on the marriages.

7. A Court ruling recognizing relationship rights and full marriage equality for all adults will provide what the Constitution requires: equal protection, rather than a piecemeal approach of this freedom to marry or that form of civil union. Equality just for some, or in some aspects but not others, or in this state but not that state, is notequality. The Constitutional principles of equal protection, freedom of association, freedom of religion, and the right to privacy, along with basic fairness, rational reflection, and compassion, necessitate that the US government ensure the rights of all adults.


8. The momentum within the US, neighboring countries, and the modern world is for marriage equality. Full marriage equality is inevitable, as even many opponents of equality admit. So it is pointless to drag the fight out. The Court can end the uncertainties and inconsistencies, and end the hateful, destructive, confusing, costly state-by-state fights that often pit older generations against younger generations, by putting the US on the right side of history sooner rather than later and recognizing relationship rights for all adults. More and more US states are adopting the limited same-gender freedom to marry. Many others have domestic partnerships or civil unions. Utah criminalizespolyamory while other states allow polyamory but do not protect polyamorists and deny the polygamous and polyamorous freedom to marry. Some states allow first cousins to marry monogamously without restriction, other states allow them to marry with restrictions, some states ban this freedom to marry entirely, and a couple of states even criminalize sex between first cousins. Some states allowing any adults who are closer relatives their sexual rights with each other while other states ban those rights.

9. Full marriage equality will end inequalities and confusion in immigration policies.

10. Recognizing relationships rights, including full marriage equality, for all adults is good for business, as many businesses have publicly stated. Their employees will no longer be treated as second-class citizens, their human resources departments will not have to deal with state-by-state conflicts, and employees will be free to move (temporarily or permanently) from one location to another without facing different restrictions on their relationships.

11. Government employees, including the men and women serving in our military, will not have to face different restrictions on their relationships from place to place.

Nobody should fear being arrested and imprisoned for having a consensual relationship with other adults.

Nobody should be denied the freedom to marry other consenting adults.

There are people who love each other, who have been living as spouses, even have children together, who are denied their rights, who need and want full marriage equality.

Let’s get on the right side of history sooner rather than later, and put the hate, bigotry, and bullying behind us. The US Supreme Court should protect the rights of all adults in all states.

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,courts,DOMA,freedom to marry,law,LGBT,marriage equality,polyamory,Proposition 8,solidarity,USA

US Supreme Court Should Make Bold Move For Equality

The US Supreme Court has heard arguments about both DOMA and Prop H8 and could issue a ruling any day now. DOMA denies same-gender marriages recognition at the national level and has been very problematic, including for members of the US military and immigrants. Prop H8 took away the same-gender freedom to marry in California. Cases about both laws had been making their way through the courts and are now at the Supreme Court. There are many possible outcomes, some seen as more likely than others. It is possible that the Court could end up ruling next month, in June, to strike down DOMA so that same-gender marriages granted in states that currently have them will be recognized by the federal government, and letting lower court decisions striking down Prop H8 stand, so that California will again have the limited same-gender freedom to marry. It is also possible the Court may rule in a way that brings about the limited same-gender freedom to marry nationwide.

We want the US Supreme Court to make the best possible ruling, which is to recognize relationship rights, including full marriage equality, for all adults nationwide.

The Court should rule that…

An adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, harassment, or discrimination.

There are many reasons why the Court should do this.

1. There are American adults, and in some cases their children, suffering right now because of discriminatory laws preventing them from marrying or even just being together. If we really care about children, equality, stability, security, and valuing family, we will let people decide for themselves what kind of relationships they will have, including marriage, if they want to marry.

2. As Court precedent states, marriage is a fundamental civil right.

3. As Court precedent states, consensual sex is part of the liberty protected by due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

4. As Court precedent states, when the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, the usual deference to the legislature is inappropriate, and the Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.

5. Freedom of association for consenting adults is a basic Constitutional right. Just as there is no good reason to ban interracial relationships or marriage, there is no good reason to ban same-gender relationships or marriages, polyamorous relationships or polygamous marriages, or consanguinamorous relationships or consanguineous marriages. There is no good reason to limit marriage to narrowly exogamous heterosexual couples.

6. Freedom of religion is a basic Constitutional right. One group’s religion should not deny the rights of other consenting adults to be together or marry. Conversely, some religions recognize or promote marriages currently banned under laws in most or all fifty states, depending on the marriages.

7. A Court ruling recognizing relationship rights and full marriage equality for all adults will provide what the Constitution requires: equal protection, rather than a piecemeal approach of this freedom to marry or that form of civil union. Equality just for some, or in some aspects but not others, or in this state but not that state, is notequality. The Constitutional principles of equal protection, freedom of association, freedom of religion, and the right to privacy, along with basic fairness, rational reflection, and compassion, necessitate that the US government ensure the rights of all adults.


8. The momentum within the US, neighboring countries, and the modern world is for marriage equality. Full marriage equality is inevitable, as even many opponents of equality admit. So it is pointless to drag the fight out. The Court can end the uncertainties and inconsistencies, and end the hateful, destructive, confusing, costly state-by-state fights that often pit older generations against younger generations, by putting the US on the right side of history sooner rather than later and recognizing relationship rights for all adults. More and more US states are adopting the limited same-gender freedom to marry. Many others have domestic partnerships or civil unions. Utah criminalizespolyamory while other states allow polyamory but do not protect polyamorists and deny the polygamous and polyamorous freedom to marry. Some states allow first cousins to marry monogamously without restriction, other states allow them to marry with restrictions, some states ban this freedom to marry entirely, and a couple of states even criminalize sex between first cousins. Some states allowing any adults who are closer relatives their sexual rights with each other while other states ban those rights.

9. Full marriage equality will end inequalities and confusion in immigration policies.

10. Recognizing relationships rights, including full marriage equality, for all adults is good for business, as many businesses have publicly stated. Their employees will no longer be treated as second-class citizens, their human resources departments will not have to deal with state-by-state conflicts, and employees will be free to move (temporarily or permanently) from one location to another without facing different restrictions on their relationships.

11. Government employees, including the men and women serving in our military, will not have to face different restrictions on their relationships from place to place.

Nobody should fear being arrested and imprisoned for having a consensual relationship with other adults.

Nobody should be denied the freedom to marry other consenting adults.

There are people who love each other, who have been living as spouses, even have children together, who are denied their rights, who need and want full marriage equality.

Let’s get on the right side of history sooner rather than later, and put the hate, bigotry, and bullying behind us. The US Supreme Court should protect the rights of all adults in all states.

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,courts,DOMA,freedom to marry,law,LGBT,marriage equality,polyamory,Proposition 8,solidarity,USA

A Familiar Tale

Someone has posted an interesting entry (the only one, from what I saw when I checked) on a blogspot. Johnny wrote this definitely Not Safe For Work entry...

This is a short story of a consensual sibling love affair between a guy named Johnny and his older sister, Shannon.  Yeah, I'm Johnny.
.

So Shannon and I grew up as 100% blood siblings in a normal, healthy family.  A Dad, a Mom, 2 kids, a cat,  a tortoise, and 2 dogs.  Nice neighborhood.

We were happy teenagers back in the 1970's.  Shannon was 2 years older than me, and she was a "beautiful female specimen".  Yeah, I obviously grew up watching "Star Trek" on prime time TV in the late 60's, and after that I watched the reruns of "Star Trek" over and over again in the 1970's.

The entry gets steamy and detailed as they did much together without actually having oral sex or intercourse. Then it wraps up...

We continued our romantic relationship until after Shannon finished college, and moved out at age 23.  She found a really nice boyfriend, and married him a year later.  I missed Shannon terribly, but was happy that she had met a genuinely nice guy.  Later I married a wonderful lady, and my wife and I lost our virginity together on our wedding night.

But I still look back fondly on all of the fun adventures that I shared with Shannon.

.
Not a day has passed since I first kissed Shannon's sweet lips that she wasn't on my mind.  Even to this day, decades later, when I'm happily married with 2 kids.  There are no regrets whatsoever.  None.  Zero. Shannon has recently told me that she feels exactly the same way.

Have either of us done anything or suggested doing anything with each other since Shannon moved out? No.

Whether Johnny is writing something that is actually autobiographical or is just a fantasy, there are many siblings who can identify with what was written. If Johnny and Shannon had wanted to stay together, they should have been free to be together openly, and to marry, if that is what they wanted.

Read more »

Posted in: brother-sister,consanguineous,love,siblings

A Familiar Tale

Someone has posted an interesting entry (the only one, from what I saw when I checked) on a blogspot. Johnny wrote this definitely Not Safe For Work entry...

This is a short story of a consensual sibling love affair between a guy named Johnny and his older sister, Shannon.  Yeah, I'm Johnny.
.

So Shannon and I grew up as 100% blood siblings in a normal, healthy family.  A Dad, a Mom, 2 kids, a cat,  a tortoise, and 2 dogs.  Nice neighborhood.

We were happy teenagers back in the 1970's.  Shannon was 2 years older than me, and she was a "beautiful female specimen".  Yeah, I obviously grew up watching "Star Trek" on prime time TV in the late 60's, and after that I watched the reruns of "Star Trek" over and over again in the 1970's.

The entry gets steamy and detailed as they did much together without actually having oral sex or intercourse. Then it wraps up...

We continued our romantic relationship until after Shannon finished college, and moved out at age 23.  She found a really nice boyfriend, and married him a year later.  I missed Shannon terribly, but was happy that she had met a genuinely nice guy.  Later I married a wonderful lady, and my wife and I lost our virginity together on our wedding night.

But I still look back fondly on all of the fun adventures that I shared with Shannon.

.
Not a day has passed since I first kissed Shannon's sweet lips that she wasn't on my mind.  Even to this day, decades later, when I'm happily married with 2 kids.  There are no regrets whatsoever.  None.  Zero. Shannon has recently told me that she feels exactly the same way.

Have either of us done anything or suggested doing anything with each other since Shannon moved out? No.

Whether Johnny is writing something that is actually autobiographical or is just a fantasy, there are many siblings who can identify with what was written. If Johnny and Shannon had wanted to stay together, they should have been free to be together openly, and to marry, if that is what they wanted.

Read more »

Posted in: brother-sister,consanguineous,love,siblings

Chilling Effect as Film Edited to Escape Ban

I reported earlier about Kim Ki-duk's "Moebius" being held up because of "incest" scenes. Despite support for the film from other filmmakers, word is out now that the film will be edited to drop the supposedly offensive material. From globalpost.com...

South Korean filmmakers called on a government ratings' agency to lift an effective ban on the screening in the country of director Kim Ki-duk's latest film about incest.

"Moebius" received a "restricted screening" rating at the Korea Media Ratings Board (KMRB) on June 1 for including content "harmful to youth" as well as "unethical and unsocial" expressions.

The movie tells the story of a man who is raised up in a family destroyed by the father's affair and renounces the world.

Films classified for "restricted screening" can only be seen at theaters dedicated only to such films. Since South Korea does not have a single theater of that kind, the decision means Kim's new film cannot be shown in his home country.

Sounds like things need to change in Korea.

Kim said last week he has sent a letter of opinion asking the agency to reconsider the decision on June 5.

"As a filmmaker, it was inevitable to use incest as a motif of the film," he said in the letter. The scenes in question "are not focusing on the mother-son sexual intercourse but the relationship between parents," he explained.

"I think Korean adults should be given a chance to make their own judgment of my film."

They should have been. But here's what was reported at hollywoodereporter.com by Lee Hyo-won...

Kim Ki-duk has cut one minute and 20 seconds of his controversial film Moebius in order to submit it for a retrial by the Korea Media Rating Board (KMRB).

That might not sound like a lot, but consider...

In signed letter released to the press Tuesday, Kim explained that he decided to cut or modify 21 scenes that the KMRB had deemed “too problematic.” The director said he made the changes because he wanted to meet the film's previously scheduled domestic distribution date slated for September.

That's too bad.

Moebius portrays the destruction of a family as its members give into incestuous sexual desires.

So even though the portrayal was negative, it still had to be cut. Absurd.

The film, much like the director's 3-Iron (2004), proceeds without dialog and hence each and every scene is important, says the director.

“The plotline or expression of the scene may appear obscure, depending on the comprehension level of each audience member. But it is my hope that mature adult viewers would be able to discern the nuance and understand my intentions,” he said.

Sounds like an interesting film.

“I would be able to share the meaning of my film in overseas markets and film festivals, but emerging actors or staff members that took part in the project need the film to be shown in Korea so they can have the opportunity to become better known,” Kim said, adding, “Lee Eun-joo, who gave an impassioned performance in the role of a mother and lover, and Seo Yeong-ju, who plays the son, really deserve to show their work to Korean audiences.”

If they won't allow a negative depiction of consanguinamory, the message is loud and clear that they would not consider allowing a neutral or positive portrayal. That's too bad.

Read more »

Posted in: Asia,boundaries,consanguineous,incest,media,mother-son,prejudice,stigma