Monday, September 9, 2013

The Polyamorous Family Next Door

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

“Allykat”, “Gray, and “Sis” were very generous with their time and privacy to provide this extensive interview about their polyamorous family. The interview is primarily with Allykat.

Read the interview below and ask yourself if there is one good reason their rights to love each other the way they want should be denied.


*****


FULL MARRIAGE EQUALITY: Describe your background.



Allykat: I'm a largely self-educated woman, 42 years old, reasonably confident, slightly overweight and working on it. I'm a member of a poly triad, a "V" if you like, with Gray (hubby) at the center and sis at the other leg of the V. She and I are "sisterwives" for lack of a better term, and we interact as sisters and co-wives rather than as lovers. We're ALL partners, though, and I truly feel the need to stress that. She is as much my partner as he is, and as important to my world. I'm blonde, short, with a round face. I tend to smile and laugh a lot, and I like to use humor to educate, inform, and sometimes to disarm.

When I speak of  being a partner here, I mean it in a very straightforward way. We are, the three of us, partners in the sense that we have a commitment to our family, our "team" as it were. It doesn't imply, nor is it meant in any way to imply, a gay relationship. It actually bothers me that I have to make that distinction, but there are some people who will see it and knee jerk, and it's important to me to be very clear about what our life is and is not like. I'm into "brutal honesty" that way.

I'm an interfaith minister trained and ordained at The New Seminary (of NYC), and recently founded a still-coalescing open and affirming organization that aims on taking some of the stigma and fear out of "the other religion" (defined as "the one you're not a member of"). Over the summer we've held several interfaith worship services, and during the cold months we plan to host several symposia (topical meetings) at our home. I offer services as a pulpit supply person, stepping in when a local pastor has a family emergency, is on holiday, or becomes ill. I'm also quite pagan in my outlook and personal practices, having started my adult life as Wiccan and moved on to something more akin to Greek reconstructionism since then.

I also write. I am a professional copy writer and editor on a freelance level. I have published one book, and hope to publish another sometime soon. I write blogs and create dynamic website content for businesses large and small. I'm also the "stay at home mom" in our family, as most of my work seems to occur in the evenings and on weekends. I'm the one home during the day in case the kids need anything.

Sis is an elementary school teacher at the local school. She's a reading specialist, working with very low and very high kids to better their ability to read, comprehend, and respond to what they've read. She's an expert in her field, and often deals with the tough cases because of this. She's often called a miracle worker. She's also the bio mother of our 8 year old boy-girl twins. She's tall, leggy, a natural red-head, a stunning beauty in my opinion. She's a hard worker, too. She's 48 years young, and the only thing that gives away her age are the laugh lines in her face.

Gray is our guy, and he's tall, a bit heavy (we do like our food), and 51 years old. He has a salt-and-pepper beard that he keeps mostly trimmed, and he has horns (really!). He's a geek by trade, and is rumored to be one of the top ten programmers on the East Coast, although we aren't sure about that. He says no, and we say yes. Regardless, he's very good at what he does, and we often call him Neo, because he can see the numbers of the Matrix where the rest of us just see computer monitors. He likes to come home and work on his backhoe and in his machine shop. Gray is bio dad to the twins.


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

All three of us have been married before, but none of us are currently married. Unless there's some kind of change in the law that lets us formalize our relationship, it's unlikely any of us will ever be married again. We don't feel comfortable with just marrying one of the two available loves... it seems wrong, discriminatory in a way, although that's not a legal fight we're interested in touching.


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

Gray is quite heterosexual, as is sis. I, on the other hand, am an avowed bisexual, and have been since childhood.


FME: How you would describe your relationship orientation or preference... polyamorous, monogamous, what?

Good question! Gray and I both consider ourselves polyamorous. We've both been actively poly for a very long time. Sis considers herself monogamous, because Gray is her only sexual partner, but is also poly-friendly (obviously) and is happy with our little family. She came from a very strict religious background, and so this is a bit of a stretch for her, but she loves us both (in different ways) and we all love our kids. I usually say we have a poly family, without going into the details of it.


FME: You currently live with…?

Right now, our home contains Gray, Sis, and myself, our two 8 year old twins, and my best friend and her daughter (neither are poly, both are poly-friendly and quite aware of our relationship). At various times over the past 12 years of our relationship we've had Gray's older children (now 21 and 25, I believe) living with us, other friends, and an unfortunately failed attempt at blending two poly families into one.


FME: Please describe the structure of the relationship.

We're in a V, FMF. Sexually speaking, he is with us both and we're friends. In practice, we're very much partners to one another, all three. We all work together to make our house a home. And raising twins really does require a village, and we pretty much make up a village on our own!


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

I met Gray many, many years ago, probably around 1998 or so. We met online, on a MUSH, and I was warned that he was not to be trusted. Of course I became immediately interested in him. We were just acquaintances for about four years, and during that time I met sis on the same MUSH. She took a liking to Gray, and asked me to introduce her to him. I did, and they got together. At first, it was online, then it was visits, then she arranged to move from her then-home to be with him. She was leaving an emotionally abusive situation, and both Gray and I were helping her as much as we could. Then 9/11 happened.

Gray should have been near the Pentagon that day, as he was working with the government at the time. I couldn't reach him for hours and hours, and at that point I realized that I wasn't just friends; I loved him. Over the next four months, things progressed relatively quickly. In April of 2002, sis went to live with him in Maryland, and in June, I joined her.

The first four years were... well, to be frankly honest, they were hellish. Sis and I did NOT gel well as  sisterwives at first, and there were many squabbles. Since then, however, we've learned to work together and life has been pretty smooth, for the most part!


FME: Describe your relationship now.

We all live together in a sort of modified ranch home in New England. We got together in 2002, so that's 11 years, and coming up on 12. Our home is really spread out and long, and so sis has a main floor bedroom at one end, and at the very other end on the second floor, I have my bedroom. She and I work up a schedule, and Gray just goes where we tell him to, for the most part. LOL! We view ourselves as partners, but not necessarily as spouses. Spouses implies a legal aspect that we just don't have, and can't have, and we're definitely more than girlfriend/boyfriend/girlfriend.

Sis poins out that we both call Gray "hubby", but that's become such a generic term that it really has little meaning on a legal level. We both refer to him as spouse or boyfriend at various times when it's necessary (hospital visits, for instance, when they need to know why you're there; explaining we're a poly family is not really a possible thing when you're dealing with staff). I personally don't think of us as married, but I do see the hand of the Divine in our relationship. Sis tends to think more along the lines of us being married but in a non-legal manner, being between us and God.

Gray: I hear the people in the poly community talk about being in a "poly relationship" and how hard that is to explain.  I use a couple of terms that help in twisting outsiders view points to be more friendly to us. The first is that it is almost always safe to call somebody a "serial polygamist" in that they have loved many different people but one after another rather than at the same time.

Second, guys often times talk about having "Two girl friends"  I just tell people "Yes, I have two girlfriends, they live with me and know about each other, obviously."


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

Allykat: Generally speaking, Gray spends Monday, Tuesday, and Friday nights with me, and the other nights with sis. That can change if there's a reason however. If someone is ill and needs alone time, that's fine. As an example, sis had surgery and for several weeks she needed him to be there for her, so she could get help getting to the bathroom and such. When I had a very close friend die, he spent quite a bit of time with me. The schedule is to help, not to tie us up.


FME: Is the lovemaking always, sometimes, or never one-on-one?

Usually it's me and him, or her and him. On rare occasions we might get together the three of us, but it's almost always for his birthday or some other special occasion. He is our focus when that happens. :)


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

We don't really have any rock-hard rules, with one exception. If there's a time any one of us "wants out," then we have to let the other two know, and then take an entire week to think it out. During that week the other two will leave the one alone (no sexual or other pressure, etc.) to think it out. Each day we'll talk about whether the one still wants to leave. If, at the end of that full week, the one still wants to go then we'll figure out terms and split things up. So far, both sis and I have both invoked this verbally, then not made it to the end of Day One. For us, it's been a relationship saver so many times. It gives space to someone who's hurting enough to lash out without thinking, and it also puts emphasis on the stability of our relationship, but it doesn't trap someone.

Beyond that, we're largely polyfidelitous, although I am usually open to getting together with another if I meet and like them and the family doesn't have any major issues.


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

I've been poly my whole life. I used to marry my stuffies and dolls to one another in large groups. While I did date one guy largely exclusively during high school, it didn't stop me from having girlfriends (yes, sexually) during that time, and it didn't stop me looking around. I didn't realize there was a name for it, and thought I was just an oddball until I was 18, when I ran into the poly community in the town I lived in. I attempted to have a one-on-one relationship with the father of my daughter (who doesn't live with us and is an adult at this point), but despite his claims to be monogamous, he spent a lot of time cheating. I decided that I was not willing to give up or "put on a shelf" something that was so much a part of me, ever again. I've been in open poly relationships since then.


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

Well, that's kind of complex. Let's see. My parents know, and that is why my bio daughter has not lived with us. Gray's  parents know, and have known since the first year, and they're incredibly supportive and loving. They think it's marvelous! Sis's dad passed away a few years ago, but never knew, and her mother sort of knows. She just repeats to herself that we're Mormon, and that makes her feel better about it. Even though it isn't true and we've said so, unless she talks to us about it directly we just let her think what she wants to make herself comfortable. Many of our neighbors know, because Gray is physically affectionate with both of us (he holds hands at swim meets with whichever lady or both happen to be there, for instance). Where we live, though, traditional New England privacy is still upheld: people only ask if they really want to know the answer, and if they don't feel comfortable with the answer they blame themselves for asking. Honestly, we've been pretty accepted throughout. It's possible that some of the teachers at the school know (kids do talk), and Gray's employer and his staff all  know.

Our approach is generally this: we are who we are and we don't hide it nor do we yell it from the rooftops. If you'd see a monogamous couple doing it, we probably do it. We don't do inappropriate things in public, because they're inappropriate but not because we're poly. Gray will happily peck each of us on the cheek before going to work, even if the neighbors are watching, but he wouldn't think of throwing us down on the front step and doing the nasty. People will see or not see what they want. If we're asked, we tell the truth. Our kids know, after all, so at some point EVERYONE will know.


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

When we lived in the Baltimore, MD area, we had to be very careful not to let sis's school system know we were a triad. She would have been fired and branded as a child molester. Unfortunately we had the opportunity to see the kind of nastiness that erupts from it, when it happened to another poly group. We were incredibly circumspect about the whole thing. Beyond that, no. When Gray had to get security clearances for his work, he was very upfront and honest about us, and I've never been in a traditional job since being with the two of them, so haven't ever had a need.

Are there disadvantages? Yes, most definitely. There are some people who will disapprove, and a small subset of those will very noisily cause problems for you. That's something you need to be prepared for. There's a lot of paperwork and expense involved if you want to make sure children are legally available to all the people in the relationship in case of emergency. In many states you can't even have a non-legal "joining ceremony" for fear you'll present yourself as married and thereby come up under the local bigamy laws. There are also people who will use poly relationships as a reason for attempting to take your children away. In fact, one of the reasons I insist on being so open about our relationship is that we're establishing a public presence with nothing to hide - our neighbors and the teachers know us, and know we don't abuse our kids, because there are no secrets. That kind of consistency goes a long way in court, in case there's ever an issue.

On the other side of that, I know for certain that I could not have raised twins on my own, and I doubt sis or Gray could have either. It's taken all three of us (and a hoard of willing friends and family) to raise these two successfully. There's a joy in knowing that 99% of the time, there's a parent at home for sick kids or to deal with homework. Our kids never come home to an empty house. There's always someone available to go to swim practice or watch a baseball game. Our kids are constantly surrounded by love. Of course, they're also constantly surrounded by *parents*, which I've been told can be frustrating. ;)


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

If someone disapproves of our relationship, it's unlikely I'd say anything. I just wouldn't spend much or any time with that person anymore. They have the right to dislike it, if that's their decision, and I've got no need to try and take that right away. Of course, conversely, they have no right to stop me living my life.

As to those who feel women are victimized in poly relationships, I say that victimization happens in all types of relationships. We have wonderful laws already in place to stop rape, child marriages, and abuse. We should use those laws, judiciously. I certainly am not victimized, and came into the relationship with eyes wide open. Sis did as well, although an argument could be made she wasn't quite as knowledgeable, being monogamous and sheltered until she joined up with Gray and myself. Still, there was no hiding it. Gray was poly at the time, made no bones about it, and made certain she understood that it was a part of him that was not about to change. We each made the decision to be here individually as well as together.


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

I don't think the law makes it inherently wrong either. I think that the law itself is inherently wrong. For those called to live in a polyamorous family, there should be freedom. Of course, if you're trying to include child brides or coerced marriages of any kind into that, then I would have problems. But a group of informed adults deciding to have a relationship? There's nothing wrong with that.


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

That's a tough question. I would like to see me have the right to religiously marry my partners. It would be extremely fulfilling, and I know ministers who would be more than happy to support us in that venture. I would like to see us have the right to a legal partnership that protected our home, our goods, our children, and us against prosecution, discrimination, and the rest, yes. These are, for me, two separate things. I'm a huge proponent of the idea that the government should get out of the religion business and stop meddling in marriage. Marriage is religious; the legal protections are a contract and should be dealt with separately, because they're largely for tax and enumeration purposes.

I don't know if there's a need for protections against discrimination. The only time I've experienced discrimination was when I did something stupid. Of course, there was the question of the Baltimore school system, and whether they would have persecuted sis simply because of who she had in her household. I think that being open and honest about things without shoving it down people's throats is probably the best method available. When everyone around you thinks you're normal, then discovers you're poly, they think, "Huh... they're just like us!" It helps heal a lot of rifts.


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

Take some time and really think it through. I don't know the feeling of discovering being poly, because I can't remember a time when I wasn't. I would honestly ask yourself, if this is a later-in-life onset thing, if perhaps you aren't just unhappy in your current relationship. I tend to wince when a marriage isn't working well for some reason and then I suddenly hear that one of the partners has spontaneously become poly. I don't know if that's "real" poly or just a response to the situation the person is in.

Go slow. Don't rush yourself. If you're in a relationship that's been monogamous up until now, don't rush your partner, either. You can't throw in a game changer like that and expect it to just be okay. If you've made fidelitous vows to someone, it may mean that you can BE poly all you like but unless you're willing to walk away, you might not be able to PRACTICE poly.

Be honest. I can't say that enough. Communicate daily. Don't expect bringing another partner in to solve the problems you're having with your current partner, because it won't. If you're settled and happy and decide together to move on to something new, together, then do it with a happy will. But bringing a new person into an already-damaged relationship is going to harm not just you and your partner, but that new person as well. Don't do it. You ALL deserve better than that.

And honestly? Don't present yourself as "a poly couple." That might sound pretentious of me, but whenever I hear that, I hear, "We're a couple and we want a nanny we can have sex with!" or something similar. Even if that's not what you're meaning to communicate, that's what we're hearing. Be a poly family, if you like. Be a couple of individuals who are searching for more individuals. Mostly, be yourself. Date together, date apart, bring new dates home to meet the family, and don't neglect what you already have.


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

Are you really all that hung up about your friend/family member having sex with more than one person? Just remember: our society today makes it both legally and socially acceptable to cheat on your spouse, but it's frowned upon and illegal to openly love more than one spouse. There's something wrong about being so up in someone else's business that you can't let it go. You may not like it, and that's your right! But making your friend/family member miserable over it is not going to help the situation.

Would you have trouble knowing that your friend/family member loved more than one of their children? If not, then consider why you're so upset that they love more than one adult.


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

We're not really active in any poly communities. At one point we tried to blend together two poly families into a single unit, and that was a massive failure. It was painful, and a very deep learning experience. I'd hesitate to do so again.

My personal experience with the poly community in my area is that it's very filled with drama and swapping, neither of which are of interest to any of the three of us. We're just us... quiet, happy, "swim parents". We have a garden and chickens, we go to neighborhood barbecues, and we help out those who need it. We don't really care whoslept with whom, nor do we want to see it emblazoned on an online forum or blog. We just want to move on with our lives. In many ways, we have much more in common with the so-called normal neighbors than we do with those who make a big deal out of being poly. We're white-bread soccer-mom types, rather than showy or flashy or anything else. I don't know if that makes sense or not...


FME: Makes plenty of sense. Any plans for the future?

Tons! We're fixing up our house slowly but surely. We're hoping that next summer we'll be able to put a hot tub out back of our home. Our new chickens should be arriving in the next week or so. The garden is getting closed down for the winter, and we're canning produce all over the place. I have sermons to write and symposia to organize. Sis has another foot to be fixed via surgery. We all have weight to lose. We'd love to see our kids excel in swim, moving forward from their very promising start.


FME: Anything else you want to add?

Kids: Our wonderful twins are very aware that we have a different family. But we're not all that different. They have many friends who have divorced parents, and who have two mommies because daddy got re-married, or other similar situations. They don't see a lot of difference (at this age, 8) between that and our set-up. They often lament that there's so much supervision around the house, and that we work together so well, but I think secretly they like it, too. If there's a bad dream, someone always has a space in bed for them to come cuddle and hug. If they're sick, they will sometimes sleep with the available female parent, so we can keep an eye on them. And from what I can see, they're doing pretty well.

DS is autistic, very mild, and he has incredibly good coping techniques because we've taught him from day one. DD is a social butterfly who wants to dress and act much older than she is. Both of them are a couple of grades ahead in most school subjects because of challenges at home and because they're just smart that way. They attend advanced classes for some things (math, reading) and then spend the rest of the day learning appropriate socialization with their peers. They don't seem the least bit bothered by having a Momma, a Daddy, and a Mei Mei (their name for me, and yes it is a Firefly reference - Shiny!).

Just as we love one another differently, they love each of us differently, but just as intensely. There's something amazing about tucking a little girl in and having her twine her arms around your neck and fiercely whisper, "I love you, Mei Mei!" :)




*****


There you have it. Three consenting adults who plan to continue to live as though married, yet not legally denied the freedom to marry. Some people try to claim that women in such a "V" relationships are victims. Does Allykat sound like she is hoodwinked or weak? No way!

Why should they or anyone like them be denied their rights? There’s no good reason.We need to adopt full marriage equality sooner rather than later, so that an adult is free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage any and all consenting adults. People are being hurt because of a denial of their basic human rights to love each other freely.

You can read other interviews I have done here.


Again, thanks to “Allykat”, “Gray, and “Sis” for doing this interview. They sound like the kind of people you'd want in our neighborhood. And you may have a family like them closer than you think.

Do the Kardashians Need to Come Out as Consanguinamorous?

[I am bumping up this old entry because it has been getting hits lately and it still relevant. I will add a note at the end, too.]

It's happened before, and it's happening again... questions about possible consanguinamory in the Kardashian clan. This time, Linda Stasi protests too much at nypost.com.
On Sunday night, Khloe Kardashian Odom stooped even lower than Kim could go by hitting on her own brother, Rob.
Stasi is unaware that this actually happens between siblings who are not on TV shows, and most if it is done without "stooping."

Anyway, Khloe, the Chewbacca of the Kardashians, proved herself to be even more of a repulsive lowlife than her fame-whore sister, Kim.
I see: flirting bad, calling people a wookie, repulsive, lowlife, whore... good?

We’re talking about implied incest for ratings! What next? Reality-show murder?
EWW: Rob, Khloe Kardashian
There's already plenty of murdering on TV. Why not depict flirting and affection between siblings, which, again, does happen in life? Affection is preferable to murder, right?
I confess I only watched this garbage after being urged to do so by a guy who watched with his family and was stunned and disgusted by what took place.
Riiiight, Linda. Are you going to watch some late night Cinemax next to see if responsible condom use is depicted?

On the episode, Khloe’s brother Rob the deadbeat (which, in that family, means you don’t have as many endorsements as the rest of them), supposedly moves in with her and her husband, Lamar Odom.
Jealous much?
Khloe tells Rob to promise he’ll never give her attitude again, to which he replies after a bit more idiotic banter, “If I do, I will reduce the size of my penis.” What? I can’t wait to speak like that with my brother.
Chewy then coos, “You don’t have a penis, you have a [bleep],” while draping herself over him adding, “Lamar thinks I’m like Cleopatra, and I’m gonna marry my brother.”

When Rob tells her that’s not going to happen, she says (warning: turn away if you have a weak stomach),“You won’t [bleep] me?"
Sounds like teasing to me. Siblings never ever tease each other, of course.



Maybe that’s why marriages outside their family never work: incest is best.
What if that was the case? So what?

She goes back twelve years to bash someone...
I thought this kind of last-taboo nonsense had seen its one and only nationwide celeb endorsement after Angelina Jolie declared how much in love with her brother she was at the 2000 Oscars — followed by bro pressing himself against her from the back and wrapping his arms around her waist.

My brother wouldn’t do this to me if I needed the freaking Heimlich Maneuver. He’d let me die and tell everyone I ate the chicken too fast.
That's her problem. Some siblings actually like each other. Some love each other in every way. She prefers siblings be at war.

Chewy Kardashian went even further than Jolie when she used —on TV yet — the “f” question that should never, period, be asked when addressing a freaking sibling!

Why not? Does she have a good reason?
We’d all be walking around with two heads.

Ah, Discredited Argument #18. Linda Stasi thinks everyone would be having children with their siblings unless we all strongly condemn it. Some would call this projection. Given what she wrote above about her brother, perhaps what we're seeing is frustration or unrequited love?

This means that either the K Klan is lower than anyone could have imagined, or the reason Khloe won’t take that DNA test to prove her paternity is because she isn’t a Kardashian after all. Or a human being.
Would you call her subhuman? Stay classy, Stasi.

Whether or not the Kardashians are consanguinamorous, and if they are, whether or not they come out of the closet, adult siblings should be free to tease, kid, flirt, and be affectionate. I have yet to see a single good reason as to why sibling consanguinamory should be categorically condemned.

UPDATE: The Kardashians do appear to crave the spotlight. Hinting at, or outright coming out as consanguinamorous would certainly get them attention. While I suspect most people in consanguinamorous relationships would prefer better representation in the media than the Kardashians, at the very least a move on the part of these television personalities would get people talking more about consanguineous sex and relationships, and it is my belief that the more talk there is about it, the more people will realize it is ridiculous to discriminate against consanguinamorous people.

Do the Kardashians Need to Come Out as Consanguinamorous?

[I am bumping up this old entry because it has been getting hits lately and it still relevant. I will add a note at the end, too.]

It's happened before, and it's happening again... questions about possible consanguinamory in the Kardashian clan. This time, Linda Stasi protests too much at nypost.com.
On Sunday night, Khloe Kardashian Odom stooped even lower than Kim could go by hitting on her own brother, Rob.
Stasi is unaware that this actually happens between siblings who are not on TV shows, and most if it is done without "stooping."

Anyway, Khloe, the Chewbacca of the Kardashians, proved herself to be even more of a repulsive lowlife than her fame-whore sister, Kim.
I see: flirting bad, calling people a wookie, repulsive, lowlife, whore... good?

We’re talking about implied incest for ratings! What next? Reality-show murder?
EWW: Rob, Khloe Kardashian
There's already plenty of murdering on TV. Why not depict flirting and affection between siblings, which, again, does happen in life? Affection is preferable to murder, right?
I confess I only watched this garbage after being urged to do so by a guy who watched with his family and was stunned and disgusted by what took place.
Riiiight, Linda. Are you going to watch some late night Cinemax next to see if responsible condom use is depicted?

On the episode, Khloe’s brother Rob the deadbeat (which, in that family, means you don’t have as many endorsements as the rest of them), supposedly moves in with her and her husband, Lamar Odom.
Jealous much?
Khloe tells Rob to promise he’ll never give her attitude again, to which he replies after a bit more idiotic banter, “If I do, I will reduce the size of my penis.” What? I can’t wait to speak like that with my brother.
Chewy then coos, “You don’t have a penis, you have a [bleep],” while draping herself over him adding, “Lamar thinks I’m like Cleopatra, and I’m gonna marry my brother.”

When Rob tells her that’s not going to happen, she says (warning: turn away if you have a weak stomach),“You won’t [bleep] me?"
Sounds like teasing to me. Siblings never ever tease each other, of course.



Maybe that’s why marriages outside their family never work: incest is best.
What if that was the case? So what?

She goes back twelve years to bash someone...
I thought this kind of last-taboo nonsense had seen its one and only nationwide celeb endorsement after Angelina Jolie declared how much in love with her brother she was at the 2000 Oscars — followed by bro pressing himself against her from the back and wrapping his arms around her waist.

My brother wouldn’t do this to me if I needed the freaking Heimlich Maneuver. He’d let me die and tell everyone I ate the chicken too fast.
That's her problem. Some siblings actually like each other. Some love each other in every way. She prefers siblings be at war.

Chewy Kardashian went even further than Jolie when she used —on TV yet — the “f” question that should never, period, be asked when addressing a freaking sibling!

Why not? Does she have a good reason?
We’d all be walking around with two heads.

Ah, Discredited Argument #18. Linda Stasi thinks everyone would be having children with their siblings unless we all strongly condemn it. Some would call this projection. Given what she wrote above about her brother, perhaps what we're seeing is frustration or unrequited love?

This means that either the K Klan is lower than anyone could have imagined, or the reason Khloe won’t take that DNA test to prove her paternity is because she isn’t a Kardashian after all. Or a human being.
Would you call her subhuman? Stay classy, Stasi.

Whether or not the Kardashians are consanguinamorous, and if they are, whether or not they come out of the closet, adult siblings should be free to tease, kid, flirt, and be affectionate. I have yet to see a single good reason as to why sibling consanguinamory should be categorically condemned.

UPDATE: The Kardashians do appear to crave the spotlight. Hinting at, or outright coming out as consanguinamorous would certainly get them attention. While I suspect most people in consanguinamorous relationships would prefer better representation in the media than the Kardashians, at the very least a move on the part of these television personalities would get people talking more about consanguineous sex and relationships, and it is my belief that the more talk there is about it, the more people will realize it is ridiculous to discriminate against consanguinamorous people.

Veterans' Benefits and Same-Sex Marriage

As summer concludes and the federal bureaucracy returns to their Washington offices, the fall-out from SCOTUS' United States v Windsor decision continues.  The latest example of bright-line policy declarations comes from Eric Holder, the U.S. Attorney General, regarding veterans benefits for same-sex couples.

In his letter last week to House Speaker John Boehner, the AG instructs Congress that the Executive Branch will no longer be enforcing various sections of federal law dealing with benefits to veterans and their spouses.  To the extent that the targeted portions of the statute mirrored definitions of a married couple as defined in the Defense of Marriage Act, they are stricken.

The effect of this new policy is to open up the availability of federal benefits to same-sex spouses of service members, both active duty and reserves.  Citing the Fifth Amendment's equal protection clause, as well as a recent federal judge's decision that the targeted provisions of the federal veterans benefits statute were unconstitutional on 5th Amendment equal protection grounds, Holder advised Congress that enforcement of these provisions were no longer appropriate.  In doing so, he also remarked that instances where the Executive Branch cannot enforce federal law are, "appropriately rare."

All of these policy pronouncements coming out of Washington over the past few months points to the massive task of re-writing a significant portion of the United States Code in light of the demise of DOMA, and in favor of valid same-sex marriages.  We here at the Law Blogger, while recognizing the significant gains this civil rights struggle has made, have to wonder how well-accepted these new federal laws and regulations will be across the board and throughout the country.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com


Sunday, September 8, 2013

State of New York Still Prosecuting Consenting Adults


That's the impression given to me based on what I can read of this article by Mike Hibbard at fltimes.com. The article is partially hidden behind a pay wall, so I can only base this on what I could see for free.


Marvin Martin, 28, pleaded guilty Tuesday in Yates County Court to third-degree incest. The charge is a class E felony punishable by up to four years in prison.

That charge is for consensual sex. And notice the article says "having sex," which I consider entirely different than assaulting. "Having sex" implies mutual consent. This is what the law say in New York...
§ 255.25 Incest in the third degree. A person is guilty of incest in the third degree when he or she marries or engages in sexual intercourse, oral sexual conduct or anal sexual conduct with a person whom he or she knows to be related to him or her, whether through marriage or not, as an ancestor, descendant, brother or sister of either the whole or the half blood, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece. Incest in the third degree is a class E felony.
In New Jersey, this wouldn't be happening.

If this had been assault or molestation, he could have been charged with 1st or 2nd degree incest, which deal with assault.

If this was consensual, it shouldn't be a crime.

If this was assault, did the DA make a deal in exchange for the guilty plea? Someone who rapes someone else should face a lot more than four years in prison. Someone who has consensual sex with another adult shouldn't be arrested in the first place.

Here are the laws against assault of a family member...

§ 255.26 Incest in the second degree. A person is guilty of incest in the second degree when he or she commits the crime of rape in the second degree, as defined in section 130.30 of this part, or criminal sexual act in the second degree, as defined in section 130.45 of this part, against a person whom he or she knows to be related to him or her, whether through marriage or not, as an ancestor, descendant, brother or sister of either the whole or the half blood, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece. Incest in the second degree is a class D felony.

§ 255.27 Incest in the first degree. A person is guilty of incest in the first degree when he or she commits the crime of rape in the first degree, as defined in subdivision three or four of section 130.35 of this part, or criminal sexual act in the first degree, as defined in subdivision three or four of section 130.50 of this part, against a person whom he or she knows to be related to him or her, whether through marriage or not, as an ancestor, descendant, brother or sister of either the whole or half blood, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece. Incest in the first degree is a class B felony.

If anyone in law enforcement or journalism, especially the ones involved in this case, what to explain, I'm all ears. You can leave a comment, including anonymously, if you'd like, and you have request in the comment for me to NOT publish it, if you'd like. Or you can email me. 

UPDATE Sept. 9 2013: 

A kind person responded to my email inquiry about this, telling me this was a plea deal. From the full article...

Martin pleaded guilty under an Alford plea, where a criminal defendant doesn’t admit an act but admits the prosecution could prove the charge. He was arrested earlier this year by state police, who allege Martin had sex with his sister dating back to 2006, when she was 15.

The arrest was not reported to the media. With the ages of 21 and 15, this was either rape or statutory rape. It this was a rape, the sentence limitations mean the sentence will be far too lenient. There are still unanswered questions, such as why it took until 2013 to arrest someone for something that happened in 2006. Was she so traumatized that she didn't come forward until this year? Or was this something law enforcement took up because of someone else's concerns? The laws need to be reformed. Remove separate laws against "incest," instead adding sentencing enhancements for rape/assault or molestation if it is by a guardian or someone with authority or power over the victim.

Saturday, September 7, 2013

Marriage of GSA Couple Annulled

reports at highlightpress.com that a marriage has been annulled and there is a new call for changes in adoption regulations in the UK.
In an incredibly rare twist of fate, a married couple in the UK have had their marriage annulled after discovering that they were in fact twins separated at birth. The pair apparently had no idea they were related, though felt an “inevitable attraction” that brought them together.

That's called Genetic Sexual Attraction, and even when people are aware of their genetic relation and GSA, it can still happen.
According to a peer addressing the House of Lords, the case highlights the importance of ensuring all adopted children have access to the details of their biological parents.

The twins at the center of the case have chosen to keep their identities hidden.
There's still much prejudice.
Speaking with the BBC in the UK, the peer spoke of the dangers associated with hiding a person’s identity over the long term. 

“If you start trying to conceal someone’s identity, sooner or later the truth will out,” the peer told the BBC.

“And if you don’t know you are biologically related to someone, you may become attracted to them and tragedies like this may occur.”
Like I said, some people experience GSA even if they know. You can read about some here.
No additional details have been made public about the couple’s future intent, though to continue the relationship even at such a stage would be in violation of UK law.
There are so many questions left unanswered by this report.

Did they have children, and how are those children? Most children born into such situations are healthy, despite myths. My guess is that if there had been children, that would have been mentioned.

Did this couple WANT their marriage annulled? I understand that the law makes it happen, stupidly, regardless of what they want. So for all we know they are still together and did not want their marriage annulled.

It is ridiculous to criminalize consensual relationships between adults, and to deny them the freedom to marry.

Imagine finding someone who makes you so happy and you marry, only to have it all taken away from you. And for what? There's no good reason. 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 fear of prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.

Marriage of GSA Couple Annulled

reports at highlightpress.com that a marriage has been annulled and there is a new call for changes in adoption regulations in the UK.
In an incredibly rare twist of fate, a married couple in the UK have had their marriage annulled after discovering that they were in fact twins separated at birth. The pair apparently had no idea they were related, though felt an “inevitable attraction” that brought them together.

That's called Genetic Sexual Attraction, and even when people are aware of their genetic relation and GSA, it can still happen.
According to a peer addressing the House of Lords, the case highlights the importance of ensuring all adopted children have access to the details of their biological parents.

The twins at the center of the case have chosen to keep their identities hidden.
There's still much prejudice.
Speaking with the BBC in the UK, the peer spoke of the dangers associated with hiding a person’s identity over the long term. 

“If you start trying to conceal someone’s identity, sooner or later the truth will out,” the peer told the BBC.

“And if you don’t know you are biologically related to someone, you may become attracted to them and tragedies like this may occur.”
Like I said, some people experience GSA even if they know. You can read about some here.
No additional details have been made public about the couple’s future intent, though to continue the relationship even at such a stage would be in violation of UK law.
There are so many questions left unanswered by this report.

Did they have children, and how are those children? Most children born into such situations are healthy, despite myths. My guess is that if there had been children, that would have been mentioned.

Did this couple WANT their marriage annulled? I understand that the law makes it happen, stupidly, regardless of what they want. So for all we know they are still together and did not want their marriage annulled.

It is ridiculous to criminalize consensual relationships between adults, and to deny them the freedom to marry.

Imagine finding someone who makes you so happy and you marry, only to have it all taken away from you. And for what? There's no good reason. 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 fear of prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.

Thursday, September 5, 2013

Two Entertainment Notes: Moebius and The House of Yes

From globalpost.com comes this note that "Moebius" went to Venice.
South Korean director Kim Ki-duk, who won the Golden Lion award at Venice film festival last year, is back in the floating city with a tale of incest and self-mutilation.

"Moebius", a story about a father's infidelity sparking a chain of violent events which lead to his wife dismembering their son, was initially banned in Kim's home country.

The Korean Media Rating Board put its foot down over the sex, nudity and incest and Kim had to cut out the offending passages before they would allow it to screen.

Read this blog's previous coverage of this movie for an explanation about those cuts.


Venice got the uncut version of the flick, which is screening out of competition.

A grotesque exploration of the destructive power of guilt and the modern obsession with sex, "Moebius" lingers compulsively over scenes in which limbs are methodically amputated.

Dialogue is forsaken to intensify the gaze as knives cut through penises.

Yeah, but let's focus on the sex being offensive, right?
"My films are an interpretation of the world that I see," the 53-year-old director, whose film "Pieta" stole the top prize last year, told journalists in Venice on Tuesday.

"I start from the concept of sex and develop it in all its detail," he said.

But Kim said the movie "should not be interpreted as a story about incest."
And from at mcgilldaily.com comes this review of The House of Yes being performed in a local theatre in Montreal.
A very obscure play that translated into a pretty indie movie, The House of Yes tells the story of an incestuous twin couple that has an obsession with the Kennedy assassination. The play begins with prodigal son Marty’s (Adam Bernett) return to his childhood home, accompanied by his fiancée. The arrival of the couple pushes twin sister Jackie O (Jordana Lajoie) over the edge and brings back Marty’s childhood desires for his sibling – which, for some reason, involved a ritual recreation of the Kennedy assassination as foreplay. In other words, it’s far from the story of your typical white-bread American family. After all, the play raises a number of interesting points on human nature and humankind’s fascination for taboo subjects such as murder and sex.
I'm looking forward to having prominent movies and plays where there's an ordinary family (even if just the neighbors to the main characters) in which there are siblings who are or were consanguinamorous, and that information is revealed and received in about the same was as finding out they are vegetarians.

Two Entertainment Notes: Moebius and The House of Yes

From globalpost.com comes this note that "Moebius" went to Venice.
South Korean director Kim Ki-duk, who won the Golden Lion award at Venice film festival last year, is back in the floating city with a tale of incest and self-mutilation.

"Moebius", a story about a father's infidelity sparking a chain of violent events which lead to his wife dismembering their son, was initially banned in Kim's home country.

The Korean Media Rating Board put its foot down over the sex, nudity and incest and Kim had to cut out the offending passages before they would allow it to screen.

Read this blog's previous coverage of this movie for an explanation about those cuts.


Venice got the uncut version of the flick, which is screening out of competition.

A grotesque exploration of the destructive power of guilt and the modern obsession with sex, "Moebius" lingers compulsively over scenes in which limbs are methodically amputated.

Dialogue is forsaken to intensify the gaze as knives cut through penises.

Yeah, but let's focus on the sex being offensive, right?
"My films are an interpretation of the world that I see," the 53-year-old director, whose film "Pieta" stole the top prize last year, told journalists in Venice on Tuesday.

"I start from the concept of sex and develop it in all its detail," he said.

But Kim said the movie "should not be interpreted as a story about incest."
And from at mcgilldaily.com comes this review of The House of Yes being performed in a local theatre in Montreal.
A very obscure play that translated into a pretty indie movie, The House of Yes tells the story of an incestuous twin couple that has an obsession with the Kennedy assassination. The play begins with prodigal son Marty’s (Adam Bernett) return to his childhood home, accompanied by his fiancée. The arrival of the couple pushes twin sister Jackie O (Jordana Lajoie) over the edge and brings back Marty’s childhood desires for his sibling – which, for some reason, involved a ritual recreation of the Kennedy assassination as foreplay. In other words, it’s far from the story of your typical white-bread American family. After all, the play raises a number of interesting points on human nature and humankind’s fascination for taboo subjects such as murder and sex.
I'm looking forward to having prominent movies and plays where there's an ordinary family (even if just the neighbors to the main characters) in which there are siblings who are or were consanguinamorous, and that information is revealed and received in about the same was as finding out they are vegetarians.

Does Polyandry Increase Offspring Health?

I found this at business-standard.com...
A joint study by researchers from four universities has suggested women could improve quality of their offspring by mating with multiple partners.

Experts examined the behaviour of an ancestor of the domestic chicken and found that mating with different males helped females produce offspring that are more resistant to disease, Daily Mail reported.

Now they claim their findings could be applied to other animals as well as humans.
I'm always cautious about citing the behavior of other species to support/oppose human behavior, but less cautious about comparing biological results.

In humans, polyandrous families (and polyamorous families in general) have found that having more adults around to assist, supervise, and protect children can always be helpful.

Wednesday, September 4, 2013

Leontiades Lauds Love, Seeks Solidarity

covers something at huffingtonpost.co.uk that is unavoidable in ethical nonmonogamy circles, and more specifically, in polyamorous circles: differences in relationship structures and guidelines, and how that divides some. Leontiades is founder of MultipleMatch.com, where this piece was previously published.
Those who feel the inclination to love many, have to learn by doing, and are often shunned and shamed whilst doing so, making the pursuit of their relationships a thousand times harder. Indeed the fact that the polyamorous community is growing at all in the face of constant opposition, is a true testament to the power of love... and marginalization. The power that the world gives polyamorists by vilification turns it into a cause, spawning Poly-pride, support groups like PolyLiving  and not for profit organizations like Loving More. 
Polyamory has definitely been coming out of the closet, but with that come some issues.


Unfortunately despite all the good intentions, a minority's struggle for acceptance will always create a 'prisoners' dilemma' and this one is no different. In the non-monogamous community certain relationship configurations are more likely to be accepted if they align themselves to already existing precepts and/or paradigms. For example as the idealised Male-Female-Female triad slowly becomes more acceptable to the general public, it's no coincidence  that it's also the most popular choice for many newly out-of the closet polyamorists; simply because it is the most familiar, comfortable and least controversial. To the outside world that is. Because poly-activists argue that this configuration still perpetuates male privilege (a bisexual female who gets it on with another girl, is no threat to the male ego - aka. One-Penis-Policy). Such a paradigm which is perceived to perpetuate the very patriarchy and notion of possession that polyamory tries to counteract in the first place, is one of the biggest hot potatoes.
I support each person finding what is best for them. For some people, that may be living alone, even being celibate (as difficult as that is for someone like me to think of as enjoyable). For others, it will be a closed, monogamous relationship, living together or not. For others, some form of ethical nonmonogamy is best. If someone, regardless of their gender, truly prefers a closed polygynous relationship, and they've found the people who make a good match, good for them. I say the same for someone who needs or prefers an equal number of men and women in their polycule, or someone who prefers polygyny, someone who needs a same-gender polycule, and all of the other possibilities (cosleeping, fluid bonding, public dates, meeting family, ceremonial bonding, etc.) Just because something isn't for me doesn't mean it isn't for someone else.
Likewise, some proponents of polyamory like to distance themselves from promiscuity and/or swinging which are heavily frowned upon by mainstreamers - even if many polyamorists discover their inclination by through such sexual liberation in the first place. Promiscuity is harshly condemned (at least when it concerns women) and swinging is premeditated promiscuity. It is - gasp - sex for fun. Moral judgements and definitions divide the non-monogamous community because the harsh rejection by the world of the community as a whole, creates a desperate need in many to achieve acceptance at any cost.

Again, let people decide for themselves.

Ethical non-monogamy by definition can include many different preferences, none more valid than the other. Of course it's worth listening to those who condemn (questioning values is what polyamorists are good at)... But know and trust that everyone's journey is different, including yours. Because when such a community is already small and despised by the outside world, it is doubly important to stick together.
Yes! YES! I've long called for solidarity on this blog. It is important when it comes to Interracial-LGBT-Poly-Consanguinamory cooperation and it is important when it comes to cooperation within ethical nonmonomist communities, too. There are many colors in a rainbow and many waves in a ocean. Ever notice, when looking in-person or at an image of a natural panorama, there are many different things that comprise the beautiful whole?

Leontiades Lauds Love, Seeks Solidarity

covers something at huffingtonpost.co.uk that is unavoidable in ethical nonmonogamy circles, and more specifically, in polyamorous circles: differences in relationship structures and guidelines, and how that divides some. Leontiades is founder of MultipleMatch.com, where this piece was previously published.
Those who feel the inclination to love many, have to learn by doing, and are often shunned and shamed whilst doing so, making the pursuit of their relationships a thousand times harder. Indeed the fact that the polyamorous community is growing at all in the face of constant opposition, is a true testament to the power of love... and marginalization. The power that the world gives polyamorists by vilification turns it into a cause, spawning Poly-pride, support groups like PolyLiving  and not for profit organizations like Loving More. 
Polyamory has definitely been coming out of the closet, but with that come some issues.


Unfortunately despite all the good intentions, a minority's struggle for acceptance will always create a 'prisoners' dilemma' and this one is no different. In the non-monogamous community certain relationship configurations are more likely to be accepted if they align themselves to already existing precepts and/or paradigms. For example as the idealised Male-Female-Female triad slowly becomes more acceptable to the general public, it's no coincidence  that it's also the most popular choice for many newly out-of the closet polyamorists; simply because it is the most familiar, comfortable and least controversial. To the outside world that is. Because poly-activists argue that this configuration still perpetuates male privilege (a bisexual female who gets it on with another girl, is no threat to the male ego - aka. One-Penis-Policy). Such a paradigm which is perceived to perpetuate the very patriarchy and notion of possession that polyamory tries to counteract in the first place, is one of the biggest hot potatoes.
I support each person finding what is best for them. For some people, that may be living alone, even being celibate (as difficult as that is for someone like me to think of as enjoyable). For others, it will be a closed, monogamous relationship, living together or not. For others, some form of ethical nonmonogamy is best. If someone, regardless of their gender, truly prefers a closed polygynous relationship, and they've found the people who make a good match, good for them. I say the same for someone who needs or prefers an equal number of men and women in their polycule, or someone who prefers polygyny, someone who needs a same-gender polycule, and all of the other possibilities (cosleeping, fluid bonding, public dates, meeting family, ceremonial bonding, etc.) Just because something isn't for me doesn't mean it isn't for someone else.
Likewise, some proponents of polyamory like to distance themselves from promiscuity and/or swinging which are heavily frowned upon by mainstreamers - even if many polyamorists discover their inclination by through such sexual liberation in the first place. Promiscuity is harshly condemned (at least when it concerns women) and swinging is premeditated promiscuity. It is - gasp - sex for fun. Moral judgements and definitions divide the non-monogamous community because the harsh rejection by the world of the community as a whole, creates a desperate need in many to achieve acceptance at any cost.

Again, let people decide for themselves.

Ethical non-monogamy by definition can include many different preferences, none more valid than the other. Of course it's worth listening to those who condemn (questioning values is what polyamorists are good at)... But know and trust that everyone's journey is different, including yours. Because when such a community is already small and despised by the outside world, it is doubly important to stick together.
Yes! YES! I've long called for solidarity on this blog. It is important when it comes to Interracial-LGBT-Poly-Consanguinamory cooperation and it is important when it comes to cooperation within ethical nonmonomist communities, too. There are many colors in a rainbow and many waves in a ocean. Ever notice, when looking in-person or at an image of a natural panorama, there are many different things that comprise the beautiful whole?

Feds Back Off Legal Challenge to State Pot Laws

By: Timothy P. Flynn

Since the Obama Administration began in 2009, we've seen memos like this at least twice before.  But last week's long-awaited Department of Justice memorandum concerning federal law enforcement policy regarding marijuana appears to be the most significant policy statement yet, and may have the most far-reaching consequences.

In a memo to all United States Attorneys, the Deputy Attorney General, James M. Cole, advises prosecutors that the Justice Department will not be challenging the recently-passed state laws legalizing marijuana in Colorado and Washington.  Also, the memo instructs prosecutors not to base pot distribution charging decisions on the size or profitability of local marijuana dispensaries.

The policy statement was significant to the legal marijuana industry in those states as well as to the medical marijuana growers and dispensary owners throughout the country.  One of the roadblocks to the development of the industry in general has been the confusion and anxiety arising when state laws say "go", but federal law still says "no".

While this memo provides some assurances to the, er, "industry professionals" [some would say, "criminals"], it does not change the basic fact that marijuana remains a Schedule 1 drug: i.e. criminalized due its high potential for abuse, with no proven medical benefits.  Just ask the owners and operators of the dozen dispensaries recently mothballed in Northern California courtesy of Melinda Haag, the U.S. Attorney in California.

The pot lobby views the DOJ's most recent policy statement as "more good than bad."  Their optimism comes from the DOJ's encouragement of large for-profit dispensaries that adhere to DOJ guidelines, and the invitation for other states to legalize pot.

Banks and insurance companies, however, have yet to buy into the transition of the marijuana industry from a craft-oriented enterprise to industrial production.  Until that occurs, the pot farmer will just have to sleep with one eye open.

Post Script:  Here is some of the fall-out to the DOJ's policy shift announcement from Congress, here and here.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Tuesday, September 3, 2013

We Get Letters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We Get Letters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Same-Sex Marriage: State Legislatures to County Family Courts

Here come the lawsuits.  In the wake of the SCOTUS ruling in June striking down same-sex marriage bans and granting federal benefits to same-sex married couples, many couples are finding their way to court houses across the country.

Most states that have what could be called "gay-friendly" legislatures, something that we would expect changes over time, have already passed laws specifically granting gay couples the right to marry in a dozen states.  So the strategy among proponents of the notion of gay marriage has shifted from the state capitols to the county courthouses.

In Santa Fe County, NM, for example, a family court judge ordered the county clerk's office to issue marriage licenses to couples without regard to their gender or sexual orientation, ruling within a brief hearing that doing so was now unconstitutional.  At the time of this blog post, 7 counties in New Mexico have followed suit.

In neighboring Texas, the Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for November in two cases where same-sex married couples were granted divorces from Texas county family courts.  The Texas Attorney General has intervened in the divorce proceedings, asserting the divorces issued by the family courts are invalid because they implicitly recognize same-sex marriage; something proscribed by Texas law.

Cases in Tennessee and Kentucky are also percolating through the state courts, testing state laws proscribing same-sex marriage.  In one of the several cases pending in Kentucky, one-half of a same-sex married couple is on trial for murder and the issue in the court is whether his "better-half" can be compelled to testify, or whether he should be granted spousal immunity.

In another high-profile case from Franklin County, Kentucky, a same-sex couple filed suit against the Governor on grounds that Kentucky's outright constitutional ban of same-sex marriages violates the Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. and Kentucky constitutions.  This is the same issue that was decided in California in the SCOTUS Windsor case.

Currently, there are too many same-sex marriage cases to track unless you are a law professor or law student writing a law review article on the subject.  Unlike the SCOTUS' 1973 Roe v Wade decision, considered the height of judicial activism, which created a sweeping constitutional ban on anti-abortion legislation, last term's same-sex marriage decision adopted a state-by-state approach.

While the momentum toward recognition of same-sex marriage as a civil right has gained steam since we here at the Law Blogger picked-up on the issue back in 2009, it will take at least a quarter century for the current dust to settle.  At least that is our prediction.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com



Categories