Monday, September 16, 2013

Did You Watch the TLC Special?

The possible pilot for a new series featuring the Williams, a polygnous family, aired on TLC last night here in the US. Did you watch? Do you have any comments? Scott D. Pierce had an article ahead of time at sltrib.com...



"It’s not an easy lifestyle to live," said Robyn Williams, Wife No. 2 to Brady.
Brady, Robyn, Wife No. 1 Paulie, Wife No. 3 Rosemary, Wife No. 4 Nonie, Wife No. 5 Rhonda and their children are the stars of "My Five Wives," an hourlong special that’s also the pilot for a potential series on cable channel TLC.
 It’s no surprise that the story of the Williamses, who live in central Utah, is reminiscent of "Sister Wives," TLC’s series about Kody Brown and his four wives. Like the Browns, the Williamses are hoping that putting themselves on TV will make the public more accepting of polygamy.
I hope so, too. I also hope other forms of polygamy and polyamory will be included in television shows.
"Sure, it’s scary," Brady said. "But it’s important to stand up for what’s right. And it’s right to allow consenting adults who are well-adjusted and not coerced to be able to share their lives and raise their children in a stable and loving environment."

Exactly!
The Williamses have never hidden the fact that they’re polygamists. Their employers and business associates know. Their kids’ friends and teachers know.
Good.

I'm not fond of the term "reality show" because it is nearly impossible to fully depict reality on a television show. But if shows like this open minds, then I'm happy for that.

Did You Watch the TLC Special?

The possible pilot for a new series featuring the Williams, a polygnous family, aired on TLC last night here in the US. Did you watch? Do you have any comments? Scott D. Pierce had an article ahead of time at sltrib.com...



"It’s not an easy lifestyle to live," said Robyn Williams, Wife No. 2 to Brady.
Brady, Robyn, Wife No. 1 Paulie, Wife No. 3 Rosemary, Wife No. 4 Nonie, Wife No. 5 Rhonda and their children are the stars of "My Five Wives," an hourlong special that’s also the pilot for a potential series on cable channel TLC.
 It’s no surprise that the story of the Williamses, who live in central Utah, is reminiscent of "Sister Wives," TLC’s series about Kody Brown and his four wives. Like the Browns, the Williamses are hoping that putting themselves on TV will make the public more accepting of polygamy.
I hope so, too. I also hope other forms of polygamy and polyamory will be included in television shows.
"Sure, it’s scary," Brady said. "But it’s important to stand up for what’s right. And it’s right to allow consenting adults who are well-adjusted and not coerced to be able to share their lives and raise their children in a stable and loving environment."

Exactly!
The Williamses have never hidden the fact that they’re polygamists. Their employers and business associates know. Their kids’ friends and teachers know.
Good.

I'm not fond of the term "reality show" because it is nearly impossible to fully depict reality on a television show. But if shows like this open minds, then I'm happy for that.

Sunday, September 15, 2013

TLC to Showcase Another Polygynous Family


TONIGHT IS THE NIGHT. I'm happy TLC is doing this, and I hope they feature other forms of polygamy and polyamory in the future. In the minds of a lot of people, if it isn't monogamy, it's polygyny, but that's not reality. Scott D. Pierce reports at sltrib.com...

"My Five Wives," featuring Brady Williams, his wives Paulie, Robyn, Rosemary, Nonie, Rhonda and their 24 children, debuts Sunday, Sept. 15, on TLC. It's essentially a pilot for a possible series.

I hope it is good, giving another positive look at ethical nonmonogamy, and that it catches on with viewers.
The Williams are described as a "big, loving, progressive polygamous family ... who all live together on their large family property outside Salt Lake City."

These aren't your average polygamists, however. Brady is an ex-Mormon, but this group isn't particularly religious, we're led to believe.

"Believing in equality for everyone and a God who loves and accepts all, the Williams family emphasize that their choice to be together is more about their mutual love and commitment than it is about religion," according to TLC. "Though their beliefs and their decision to leave their church have led them to be shunned by their community and estranged from many family members, the Williams believe their sacrifices are worth it."

Do they really support full marriage equality? That would be sweet.

If you read the story, these are not fleeting made-for-TV relationships, but ones that have endured many years. There's no good reason why they shouldn't be free to be together and to marry.

What do you think? Will you watch?

TLC to Showcase Another Polygynous Family


TONIGHT IS THE NIGHT. I'm happy TLC is doing this, and I hope they feature other forms of polygamy and polyamory in the future. In the minds of a lot of people, if it isn't monogamy, it's polygyny, but that's not reality. Scott D. Pierce reports at sltrib.com...

"My Five Wives," featuring Brady Williams, his wives Paulie, Robyn, Rosemary, Nonie, Rhonda and their 24 children, debuts Sunday, Sept. 15, on TLC. It's essentially a pilot for a possible series.

I hope it is good, giving another positive look at ethical nonmonogamy, and that it catches on with viewers.
The Williams are described as a "big, loving, progressive polygamous family ... who all live together on their large family property outside Salt Lake City."

These aren't your average polygamists, however. Brady is an ex-Mormon, but this group isn't particularly religious, we're led to believe.

"Believing in equality for everyone and a God who loves and accepts all, the Williams family emphasize that their choice to be together is more about their mutual love and commitment than it is about religion," according to TLC. "Though their beliefs and their decision to leave their church have led them to be shunned by their community and estranged from many family members, the Williams believe their sacrifices are worth it."

Do they really support full marriage equality? That would be sweet.

If you read the story, these are not fleeting made-for-TV relationships, but ones that have endured many years. There's no good reason why they shouldn't be free to be together and to marry.

What do you think? Will you watch?

Declassification of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Opinions

By:  Timothy P. Flynn

Well, you had to see this one coming.  Something just does not seem right when a federal court adjudicates in secret, even if done under the provisions of the Patriot Act.

When Edward Snowden released a cashe of classified national security-related information earlier this summer, many in the legal blogosphere began to take note, and the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court [FISC] was suddenly in the spotlight.

Much of the Snowden-generated furor involved government tracking and storage of email and cell phone transmissions; data, big and raw.  Here is our take on the issue in this post.

Thanks to the ACLU of Washtington, D.C., the FISC is again in the spotlight on a motion, brought pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, to release certain opinions of the secret court which deal directly with the constitutionality of the court.  Opinions deciding the FISC's own constitutionality; now there is an interesting method of judicial review.

Here is the FISC Opinion, authored by Judge Dennis Saylor, ordering the federal government and the ACLU to submit a list of constitutional-threshold FISC opinions and a proposed declassification process by which the opinions can be submitted to the judge that authored the opinion for the author's judicial consideration as to whether they should be publicized.

Sound complicated?  Well, at least it is some progress toward openness.  The government list of opinions deemed suitable for publication and a proposed declassification procedure are due by October 4th.

The ACLU's filing sought publication of the FISC opinions directly from the stealth court itself, rather than as a component of separate litigation.  As noted in Judge Saylor's opinion, a similar request was lodged in 2011 by the ACLU in federal court in Manhattan which continues to be litigated.

When they are finally made public, these opinions will be very interesting.  We here at the Law Blogger cannot wait to see how the FISC passed muster on itself.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Friday, September 13, 2013

Student Convicted for Menacing Facebook Post


Last December, on the same day of the Sandy Hook massacre in Connecticut, a high school sophomore in Wilmington, OH exercised his right to free speech along with some incredibly poor judgment and posted the following on his Facebook status:
Kids were shot. Who cares?  Dead kids are dead kids.  Murder is a good thing. This is a serious status, I really think murder is a good thing.  It doesn't matter who is killed, as long as there is killing.  I have been saying for years now that there needs to be another mass murder, I have said this too (sic) many people.  The fact they were just kids makes me laugh.  I'd have done this job myself if I could have. All forms of life are insignificant.  Doesn't matter if they die today, tomorrow, or in 30 years. They are going to die.  I may as well help them out.
Wow!  While the group of people that would agree with such abhorrent commentary is a minute psychotic fringe, the group of people that would support the student's right to spout such venom is much larger.  In the law enforcement community, however, not so much.

Understandably, this young student's problems began shortly after he posted this status, starting with his arrest and detention.  He was charged with violating Ohio's "menacing" and "inducing panic" statutes.

At the student's adjudicatory hearing last January, the principal of Wilmington High School testified that, in light of the events of Sandy Hook that same day, he considered the Facebook post to be a threat, especially in the context of his duty to protect 900 students at his school.  On the basis of this and other evidence [the student, according to detectives, showed zero remorse and seemed not to care about the proceedings against him] the juvenile was convicted.

On appeal, the juvenile asserted that his conviction was based on insufficient evidence to the extent that his words did not constitute a specific threat and he did not name an intended target.  The Ohio appellate court rejected this assertion and affirmed his adjudication as a delinquent last week, holding the criminalized conduct of the menacing statute is much broader and includes such generalized "threats" within its scope.

The Ohio appellate opinion provided the following rationale:
The reach of [the menacing statute] is not so narrow as to be restricted only to conduct constituting an overt threat as P.T. [the Defendant] suggests.  Rather, the statute proscribes a much broader spectrum of behavior by criminalizing any conduct engaged in by a person knowing that such conduct would cause another to believe the offender will cause the other person, or the other’s family, physical harm.  In the present case, P.T. posted on Facebook—knowing that it is a website readily accessible to many individuals living in the Wilmington area—endorsing the events that occurred at Sandy Hook and stating that if he had the means to accomplish such a shooting, he would have "done the job" himself. Although the posts were not made to or about any particular person, it was reasonable to believe that the posts would be viewed and conveyed through Facebook to individuals associated with the Wilmington school district, where P.T. attended school.
Interestingly, the opinion does not indicate whether the student, through his appellate attorneys, raised a free speech defense under the First Amendment.  Also, the opinion is wholly silent as to a First Amendment analysis.

This case could have been the digital version of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.  Apparently, that did not matter in this Ohio case which focused solely on whether the threat was real.

A close look at the evidence summarized by the appellate court indicates that it was not a credible or real threat.  So where does that leave Ohioans, hunched over their computers typing away at some loathsome post for which they can be punished?  Where does this case leave the First Amendment?

Post Script - Here's the other side of this coin.  A Florida middle school girl jumped to her death as this post was being composed yesterday, apparently distraught from a year of constant bullying by her peers.  Here is a link to the story.  Most of the bullying took place on social media sites where the bullies asked the young girl why she was still alive and to just go kill herself.  Florida has anti-bullying statutes on the books, and the bullies have First Amendment rights.  We here at the Law Blogger have to ask: just where do you draw the line?

Post Post Script - Just days after this post was published, a federal appeals panel from the 4th Circuit held that clicking "like" on Facebook was a form of protected free speech under the first amendment.  Here is the WSJ link to a post detailing the ruling.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Thursday, September 12, 2013

Branded

This blog is about rights for consenting adults and makes a clear distinction between consensual sex and assault/abuse. When it comes to activity between minors, or people under the age of consent, the difference isn't as easy to distinguish, especially when dealing with younger children. In the US, the age of consent to sex varies from state to state. In some states, the age is 18. In others it is 17 or 16, some states with limitations about how much older the other person can be. How this works legally is that in a state where 18 is the absolute age of consent for sex, a 17-year-old is not able to legally consent to sex with, say, a 20-year-old no matter how intelligent, emotionally mature, and how attracted the 17-year-old is.



Most family therapists do no consider uncoerced, mutual sexual exploration between minors close in age to abusive. The problem comes when one minor does something with another minor who is significantly younger. So even though an 13-year-old may not be able to legally consent to sex with a 17-year-old, a 13-year-old can be held criminally guilty for doing something with an 8-year-old or a younger child.

I bring all of this up because of something I found at courthousenews.com, which asked, "Should Child Offenders Be Punished For Life?" By child offenders, the writer means "children who offend," not "those who offend against children." Sam Reynolds reported...


A girl who committed incest when she was 11 and a boy who tried to hug a girl on a playground when he was 13 sued the governor of Colorado, claiming that children who commit offenses should not have to register as sex offenders for life.
Plaintiffs A.A., D.M. and V.A. sued Hickenlooper in his official capacity, in Federal Court. They challenge enforcement of the Colorado Sex Offender Registration Act, which they say invades their privacy and does not benefit the community.

 A.A., now 23, "was eleven years old when she allegedly committed aggravated incest," according to the lawsuit. She was arrested 3 years later, in 2003, adjudicated delinquent, and released from supervision in December 2007, a few days before her 18th birthday.
My guess is that A.A. did something to a niece, nephew, or sibling (full, half, step, or adopted) who was 7 or younger, and that A.A. had been a victim previously.
A.V., now 28, was 13 when a classmate at his elementary school "accused him of 'always trying to hug her.' He was adjudged delinquent for criminal attempt to commit third degree sex assault," according to the complaint. He was sentenced to juvenile hall, served his time, was paroled and discharged from parole.

D.M., 51, was convicted of second-degree sexual assault in 1999. He was sentenced to 8 years probation and completed it, with sex offense-specific treatment, and his supervision was terminated in 2007.

All three plaintiffs are minorities. A.A. and D.M. are African-American; A.V. is Latino.

None of them have committed or have been accused of committing a sex crime since they were discharged from supervision, but all have struggled to keep jobs and housing because they are listed on the Colorado Bureau of Investigation's public database of registered sex offenders.
One of these things is not like the others, to quote a television show I remember fondly from my childhood. D.M.'s case is nothing like the other two, unless "1999" was an error.
"Registering youth sex offenders, such as A.A. and A.V. is bad public policy, including the fact it overburdens law enforcement with large numbers of people to monitor, undifferentiated by their dangerousness," the complaint states.

This is why when I hear that someone is a "sex offender" I want to know what that really means. Adult siblings should never be charged with a crime for have sex with each other, and they are no threat to anyone else, unlike a rapist. A man convicted of paying for sex with another man is nothing like a man who molests prepubescent boys. I don't worry about living next to a man who, when he was 19, had sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend. Not all sex offenders are predators.

It will be interesting to see if anything will be changed. I don't know enough about children who abuse others to make a blanket statement about whether they should continue to be labeled or not once they have been adults and have not been caught abusing anyone for a long time.

The sexual development of a young person should not be traumatic, and should be free of interference from predators. My hunch is that minors are better protected when they are educated, and not shamed, about sexuality.

Branded

This blog is about rights for consenting adults and makes a clear distinction between consensual sex and assault/abuse. When it comes to activity between minors, or people under the age of consent, the difference isn't as easy to distinguish, especially when dealing with younger children. In the US, the age of consent to sex varies from state to state. In some states, the age is 18. In others it is 17 or 16, some states with limitations about how much older the other person can be. How this works legally is that in a state where 18 is the absolute age of consent for sex, a 17-year-old is not able to legally consent to sex with, say, a 20-year-old no matter how intelligent, emotionally mature, and how attracted the 17-year-old is.



Most family therapists do no consider uncoerced, mutual sexual exploration between minors close in age to abusive. The problem comes when one minor does something with another minor who is significantly younger. So even though an 13-year-old may not be able to legally consent to sex with a 17-year-old, a 13-year-old can be held criminally guilty for doing something with an 8-year-old or a younger child.

I bring all of this up because of something I found at courthousenews.com, which asked, "Should Child Offenders Be Punished For Life?" By child offenders, the writer means "children who offend," not "those who offend against children." Sam Reynolds reported...


A girl who committed incest when she was 11 and a boy who tried to hug a girl on a playground when he was 13 sued the governor of Colorado, claiming that children who commit offenses should not have to register as sex offenders for life.
Plaintiffs A.A., D.M. and V.A. sued Hickenlooper in his official capacity, in Federal Court. They challenge enforcement of the Colorado Sex Offender Registration Act, which they say invades their privacy and does not benefit the community.

 A.A., now 23, "was eleven years old when she allegedly committed aggravated incest," according to the lawsuit. She was arrested 3 years later, in 2003, adjudicated delinquent, and released from supervision in December 2007, a few days before her 18th birthday.
My guess is that A.A. did something to a niece, nephew, or sibling (full, half, step, or adopted) who was 7 or younger, and that A.A. had been a victim previously.
A.V., now 28, was 13 when a classmate at his elementary school "accused him of 'always trying to hug her.' He was adjudged delinquent for criminal attempt to commit third degree sex assault," according to the complaint. He was sentenced to juvenile hall, served his time, was paroled and discharged from parole.

D.M., 51, was convicted of second-degree sexual assault in 1999. He was sentenced to 8 years probation and completed it, with sex offense-specific treatment, and his supervision was terminated in 2007.

All three plaintiffs are minorities. A.A. and D.M. are African-American; A.V. is Latino.

None of them have committed or have been accused of committing a sex crime since they were discharged from supervision, but all have struggled to keep jobs and housing because they are listed on the Colorado Bureau of Investigation's public database of registered sex offenders.
One of these things is not like the others, to quote a television show I remember fondly from my childhood. D.M.'s case is nothing like the other two, unless "1999" was an error.
"Registering youth sex offenders, such as A.A. and A.V. is bad public policy, including the fact it overburdens law enforcement with large numbers of people to monitor, undifferentiated by their dangerousness," the complaint states.

This is why when I hear that someone is a "sex offender" I want to know what that really means. Adult siblings should never be charged with a crime for have sex with each other, and they are no threat to anyone else, unlike a rapist. A man convicted of paying for sex with another man is nothing like a man who molests prepubescent boys. I don't worry about living next to a man who, when he was 19, had sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend. Not all sex offenders are predators.

It will be interesting to see if anything will be changed. I don't know enough about children who abuse others to make a blanket statement about whether they should continue to be labeled or not once they have been adults and have not been caught abusing anyone for a long time.

The sexual development of a young person should not be traumatic, and should be free of interference from predators. My hunch is that minors are better protected when they are educated, and not shamed, about sexuality.

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

No Amount of Lipstick Will Help

I found a discussion thread at lipstickalley.com that got very ugly. It started when a user named sierra posted, disapprovingly, what appears to be someone else's account of experiencing Genetic Sexual Attraction...
I met and fell in love with this older man. Im 28 and he is 44. We were seeing each other for 3 years when I decided to introduce him to the family. We had a birthday party for a family member that I brought him to, it was more like a "reunion." Anyway as SOOOOON as we walked in my aunt screamed, "Oh My God, what is HE doing here? How did she find him?" Looked like she had seen a ghost. Im looking confused, my boyfriend is looking confused and then he says, "Hi Neicy, what's wrong with you, what do you mean how did she find me?" My aunt pulled him to the side, by now my mother has come over and she starts crying. Im SO confused, my boyfriend is SO confused and looks dazed. He and my aunt talk while my mother takes me in to the restroom and reveals that he is my dad. That they had gotten together one night after a game and that she became pregnant and never told him (she even transferred schools because she went to another state to live with my great aunt during the pregnancy).

After I nearly had a mental breakdown, I walked out the bathroom to find "dad" and he was gone. I tried to contact him to no avail for 3 months, I was confused but IN LOVE, we had 3 yrs together. After about 8 months he came to my house. He told me he had been receiving counseling but could not overcome his love for me as his girlfriend. Since we had no DNA to prove paternity, we got back together. My cousin "Q" continues to ask me, "Why do you want this man?" I get what he's saying but I DIDN'T KNOW...WE DIDN'T know. We did not, could not believe this was true so we decided to take a DNA test in July. I had the results sent to my sister "C" and it has showed 99.8% accuracy. We were devastated. But now we have had 3 yrs and an additional 9 months together (after the separation).

We practiced restraint since July and decided to try to have a dinner together a 2 days ago to discuss how we would move forward as father/daughter, but we slipped up and our passion took over. We dont FEEL like father/daughter. After the encounter, we even discussed moving to another state to be together, but it's not practical. I know we are wrong but HOW DO WE MOVE ON? We will always be in love. This is breaking our hearts and driving us crazy. Is it THAT bad to sleep with dad (since we didnt know)? HELP ME
I don't know where sierra got this account, but if this a real story, and I do believe it is possible and it appears to be credible rather than outlandish, then this sounds like Genetic Sexual Attraction.

The responses were the kind that sting people who have experienced GSA. They are highly phobic and prejudiced. Continue on and your own risk.



sunflowerz wrote...
sooo many questions. Something must be wrong with the both of them. My vag would have dried up the moment I came to my senses and learned he was my dad.
GSA is not an indication that anything is wrong with anyone. It is a normal, natural response to circumstances neither of them intended to create. They had three loving, happy years together already. That doesn't just disappear because they share some genetic material.

Justin's Heaux spewed ignorance...
nasty ass people.
nasty nasty nasty.
he is a pedo. i feel like he would have molested her.
and she has abandonment issues. she was looking for daddy in the first place...whatever.

A man who is attracted to a woman in her 20s is not a pedophile based on such an attraction. She accuses him of being a child molester based on... no evidence whatsoever. As far as abandonment issues, she make have had a stepfather or a man she believed to be her father with whom she had a great relationship. Either way, most women who've married older men have had a present father.

Echoing the judgmentalism of others, monie said...
Once you know that you're related there should be no excuse to be so disgusting.
Again, three years together before the discovery. To them, it isn't disgusting. He did not raise her. Why should they stop being together just become they have some strings of chemicals in their bodies that are the same?

Someone called KwisatzHaderach was confident that if the mother had told the daughter of her genetic parentage from the beginning, this wouldn't have happened. However, many people who have experienced GSA did know of their genetic relation.

reynac28 is apparently ignorant of how common sex and marriage is and has always been between first cousins and would be shocked if doing a little genealogical research...
I had a distant cousin that admitted to wantingvto marry her 1st cousin the guy wasvlocked up and was even gonna ask her dad (which is his uncle) for his blessing..I was sick for weeks I cant even fathom how that Convo went

Wow.

Five of Staves wrote...
The only answer is no contact and cutting all ties with each other.

Why? Because someone else is disgusted? So what? The original poster even checked back in on the thread to recall another account of a father-daughter GSA situation, so obviously it should be a clue to these people that it does happen.


Here's what I wrote in the thread as a response...

This is called Genetic Sexual Attraction and GSA is real and is a common, normal response to the circumstances involved. GSA is not an indication that anything is wrong with someone. Genetic Sexual Attraction happens in up to half of all situations in which pubescent or post-pubescent genetic relatives meet for the first time or reunite after having been separated since at least one of them was a child. That means 50% of the time, at least one of them experiences an overwhelming physical, emotional, sexual attraction. Sometimes the feelings are mutual. This has happened to people who knew they were closely related and to people who had no idea they were closely related, including people who have previously felt a strong revulsion to the idea of consensual incest.

Scientific studies show most people are attracted to people who look like them. Who looks more like you than a close genetic relative? However, something described as the Westermarck Effect overrides this in most (not all) circumstances in which one person raises another or they grow up in the same home. Close genetic relatives who were separated won't have the Westermarck Effect countering a powerful physical attraction. Add in emotional and psychological factors involved in reuniting with a lost family member, and you have something extremely powerful.

I realize that many people have a knee-jerk reaction of disgust. However, I know lesbians who are disgusted by any thought of people having heterosexual sex. The disgust of persons A and B should not interfere with a consensual relationship between persons Y and Z. Try to put aside your own turn-offs and think about this rationally.

I have interviewed people who are intelligent, educated, attractive, good citizens who have loving relationships initiated through GSA. There is no reason they should be discriminated against, treated like criminals, or bullied. They are not hurting anybody. GSA is only going to happen more in the future due to the realities of today’s world (broken/ended relationships, affairs, flings, one night stands, and hookups that have produced children, egg/sperm/embryo donation, social networking and increased mobility allowing for lost relatives to reunite).

I’ll go ahead an answer the typical attacks hurled their way:

It’s illegal? So was what Rosa Parks did when she refused to give up her bus seat to a white person. And actually, there are US states and many countries where such relationships are NOT illegal. They shouldn’t be illegal in the first place. That is the whole point. If we do not have the right to love each other as we agree, what rights do we really have?

Abuse? Uh, no. Just like consensual casual sex has nothing to do with rape, these relationships are not about abuse.

Making mutant babies? First of all, some of these relationships are between people who will not reproduce because they are infertile, or too old, or the same gender, or whatever. Secondly, most children born to close relatives are healthy. And yes, I know of some children from such relationships… beautiful, healthy, bright children. Actually, you do too, whether you know it or not. Finally, we do not prevent people from obvious, serious genetic diseases from dating, having sex, marrying, having children, etc. So why try to stop healthy people experiencing GSA from loving each other?

But they’re family members? Actually, many of these cases involve adoption or some other circumstance where they have families. For example, a woman who has an adoptive father who raised her. Her genetic father has not served in that role. To say "family members don't do that"... who says? 10-15% of people in their early 20s will confide in surveys to already having had consensual sexual contact with a sibling. That's just a sibling, not another close relative.

But isn’t there a power differential? Hardly, especially between genetic siblings close in age. Remember, one did not raise the other. But if power differences were a reason to ban a relationships MOST relationships would be banned. No President or billionaire or weightlifting champion would be allowed to have a relationship, and we could only date someone with the same IQ, same net worth, etc.

There is no rational reason for keeping laws or taboos against these relationships that is consistently applied to other relationships. Some people are disgusted by the thought of interracial relationships, gay relationships, heterosexual relationships, their own parents having sex. So what? Why should that have any control over anyone else? 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, persecution, or discrimination.

No Amount of Lipstick Will Help

I found a discussion thread at lipstickalley.com that got very ugly. It started when a user named sierra posted, disapprovingly, what appears to be someone else's account of experiencing Genetic Sexual Attraction...
I met and fell in love with this older man. Im 28 and he is 44. We were seeing each other for 3 years when I decided to introduce him to the family. We had a birthday party for a family member that I brought him to, it was more like a "reunion." Anyway as SOOOOON as we walked in my aunt screamed, "Oh My God, what is HE doing here? How did she find him?" Looked like she had seen a ghost. Im looking confused, my boyfriend is looking confused and then he says, "Hi Neicy, what's wrong with you, what do you mean how did she find me?" My aunt pulled him to the side, by now my mother has come over and she starts crying. Im SO confused, my boyfriend is SO confused and looks dazed. He and my aunt talk while my mother takes me in to the restroom and reveals that he is my dad. That they had gotten together one night after a game and that she became pregnant and never told him (she even transferred schools because she went to another state to live with my great aunt during the pregnancy).

After I nearly had a mental breakdown, I walked out the bathroom to find "dad" and he was gone. I tried to contact him to no avail for 3 months, I was confused but IN LOVE, we had 3 yrs together. After about 8 months he came to my house. He told me he had been receiving counseling but could not overcome his love for me as his girlfriend. Since we had no DNA to prove paternity, we got back together. My cousin "Q" continues to ask me, "Why do you want this man?" I get what he's saying but I DIDN'T KNOW...WE DIDN'T know. We did not, could not believe this was true so we decided to take a DNA test in July. I had the results sent to my sister "C" and it has showed 99.8% accuracy. We were devastated. But now we have had 3 yrs and an additional 9 months together (after the separation).

We practiced restraint since July and decided to try to have a dinner together a 2 days ago to discuss how we would move forward as father/daughter, but we slipped up and our passion took over. We dont FEEL like father/daughter. After the encounter, we even discussed moving to another state to be together, but it's not practical. I know we are wrong but HOW DO WE MOVE ON? We will always be in love. This is breaking our hearts and driving us crazy. Is it THAT bad to sleep with dad (since we didnt know)? HELP ME
I don't know where sierra got this account, but if this a real story, and I do believe it is possible and it appears to be credible rather than outlandish, then this sounds like Genetic Sexual Attraction.

The responses were the kind that sting people who have experienced GSA. They are highly phobic and prejudiced. Continue on and your own risk.



sunflowerz wrote...
sooo many questions. Something must be wrong with the both of them. My vag would have dried up the moment I came to my senses and learned he was my dad.
GSA is not an indication that anything is wrong with anyone. It is a normal, natural response to circumstances neither of them intended to create. They had three loving, happy years together already. That doesn't just disappear because they share some genetic material.

Justin's Heaux spewed ignorance...
nasty ass people.
nasty nasty nasty.
he is a pedo. i feel like he would have molested her.
and she has abandonment issues. she was looking for daddy in the first place...whatever.

A man who is attracted to a woman in her 20s is not a pedophile based on such an attraction. She accuses him of being a child molester based on... no evidence whatsoever. As far as abandonment issues, she make have had a stepfather or a man she believed to be her father with whom she had a great relationship. Either way, most women who've married older men have had a present father.

Echoing the judgmentalism of others, monie said...
Once you know that you're related there should be no excuse to be so disgusting.
Again, three years together before the discovery. To them, it isn't disgusting. He did not raise her. Why should they stop being together just become they have some strings of chemicals in their bodies that are the same?

Someone called KwisatzHaderach was confident that if the mother had told the daughter of her genetic parentage from the beginning, this wouldn't have happened. However, many people who have experienced GSA did know of their genetic relation.

reynac28 is apparently ignorant of how common sex and marriage is and has always been between first cousins and would be shocked if doing a little genealogical research...
I had a distant cousin that admitted to wantingvto marry her 1st cousin the guy wasvlocked up and was even gonna ask her dad (which is his uncle) for his blessing..I was sick for weeks I cant even fathom how that Convo went

Wow.

Five of Staves wrote...
The only answer is no contact and cutting all ties with each other.

Why? Because someone else is disgusted? So what? The original poster even checked back in on the thread to recall another account of a father-daughter GSA situation, so obviously it should be a clue to these people that it does happen.


Here's what I wrote in the thread as a response...

This is called Genetic Sexual Attraction and GSA is real and is a common, normal response to the circumstances involved. GSA is not an indication that anything is wrong with someone. Genetic Sexual Attraction happens in up to half of all situations in which pubescent or post-pubescent genetic relatives meet for the first time or reunite after having been separated since at least one of them was a child. That means 50% of the time, at least one of them experiences an overwhelming physical, emotional, sexual attraction. Sometimes the feelings are mutual. This has happened to people who knew they were closely related and to people who had no idea they were closely related, including people who have previously felt a strong revulsion to the idea of consensual incest.

Scientific studies show most people are attracted to people who look like them. Who looks more like you than a close genetic relative? However, something described as the Westermarck Effect overrides this in most (not all) circumstances in which one person raises another or they grow up in the same home. Close genetic relatives who were separated won't have the Westermarck Effect countering a powerful physical attraction. Add in emotional and psychological factors involved in reuniting with a lost family member, and you have something extremely powerful.

I realize that many people have a knee-jerk reaction of disgust. However, I know lesbians who are disgusted by any thought of people having heterosexual sex. The disgust of persons A and B should not interfere with a consensual relationship between persons Y and Z. Try to put aside your own turn-offs and think about this rationally.

I have interviewed people who are intelligent, educated, attractive, good citizens who have loving relationships initiated through GSA. There is no reason they should be discriminated against, treated like criminals, or bullied. They are not hurting anybody. GSA is only going to happen more in the future due to the realities of today’s world (broken/ended relationships, affairs, flings, one night stands, and hookups that have produced children, egg/sperm/embryo donation, social networking and increased mobility allowing for lost relatives to reunite).

I’ll go ahead an answer the typical attacks hurled their way:

It’s illegal? So was what Rosa Parks did when she refused to give up her bus seat to a white person. And actually, there are US states and many countries where such relationships are NOT illegal. They shouldn’t be illegal in the first place. That is the whole point. If we do not have the right to love each other as we agree, what rights do we really have?

Abuse? Uh, no. Just like consensual casual sex has nothing to do with rape, these relationships are not about abuse.

Making mutant babies? First of all, some of these relationships are between people who will not reproduce because they are infertile, or too old, or the same gender, or whatever. Secondly, most children born to close relatives are healthy. And yes, I know of some children from such relationships… beautiful, healthy, bright children. Actually, you do too, whether you know it or not. Finally, we do not prevent people from obvious, serious genetic diseases from dating, having sex, marrying, having children, etc. So why try to stop healthy people experiencing GSA from loving each other?

But they’re family members? Actually, many of these cases involve adoption or some other circumstance where they have families. For example, a woman who has an adoptive father who raised her. Her genetic father has not served in that role. To say "family members don't do that"... who says? 10-15% of people in their early 20s will confide in surveys to already having had consensual sexual contact with a sibling. That's just a sibling, not another close relative.

But isn’t there a power differential? Hardly, especially between genetic siblings close in age. Remember, one did not raise the other. But if power differences were a reason to ban a relationships MOST relationships would be banned. No President or billionaire or weightlifting champion would be allowed to have a relationship, and we could only date someone with the same IQ, same net worth, etc.

There is no rational reason for keeping laws or taboos against these relationships that is consistently applied to other relationships. Some people are disgusted by the thought of interracial relationships, gay relationships, heterosexual relationships, their own parents having sex. So what? Why should that have any control over anyone else? 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, persecution, or discrimination.

Troy District Judge Invalidates Driving While High Law

52-4 District Judge
Kirsten Hartig
By: Timothy P. Flynn

This ruling is going to get some attention in high places.  Troy District Judge Kirsten Nielsen Hartig has ruled that Michigan's motor vehicle code provision criminalizing the operation of a motor vehicle with the presence of a controlled substance [marijuana] violates the equal protection clause of the Michigan and United States Constitutions.

The case, People v Sulaka, arose in 2010 when the accused was allegedly speeding and, when pulled-over, could not produce a drivers license.  In the process of making an arrest for this seemingly innocuous violation, the Troy Police officer detected the odor of marijuana coming from the car and took Sulaka to the hospital for a blood draw which yielded a trace amount of THC.

Our friend, Superlawyer Neil Rockind, argued that the controlled substance provision of the motor vehicle code improperly created a strict liability crime, improperly shifted the burden of proof from the prosecutor to the accused, and unconstitutionally created two classes of people treated differently under the law.

Judge Hartig was persuaded to invalidate the motor vehicle code on equal protection grounds.  Here's how the idea works: there are two classes of people subjected to the controlled substance provision of our motor vehicle code.  One group of drivers have medical marijuana cards and are permitted to have THC in their blood stream while driving, so long as the level does not impair their ability to drive [so says the Michigan Supreme Court in a recent case dealing with the medical marijuana act].  The other group of drivers has no such pot card and are strictly liable for operating a vehicle with any amount of THC in their blood.

In her ruling, Judge Hartig relied on a case from the Georgia Supreme Court that held that the effects of legally used marijuana [i.e. medical marijuana here in Michigan] are indistinguishable from the effects of illegal marijuana consumption: the driver is still buzzed under either set of circumstances.  Therefore, no rational public safety interest is served by creating these distinct classes of drivers thus, the equal protection clause of our Constitution is offended.

The case has already made one trip to the Oakland County Circuit Court for the prosecutor's appeal of Judge Hartig's initial dismissal of the case.  Oakland Circuit Judge Colleen O'Brien relied on the now-reversed Court of Appeals decision in the People v Koon case, which ruled that even drivers with medical marijuana cards violated the motor vehicle code when driving with THC in their bloodstream.  [The Law Blogger's take on the Koon case is here.]

Of course, the Oakland County Prosecutor has again appealed Judge Hartig's second dismissal so the case seems destined to grind further through the appellate process.  Regardless of how Judge O'Brien rules in the [second] appeal of right, both sides are heavily invested in this case and can be expected to apply for further discretionary appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals.

We shall see whether the Court of Appeals will grant leave in light of our High Court's ruling in the Koon case.  At some point, our legislature needs to address the disconnect between the motor vehicle code and the medical marijuana act.

Unlike alcohol, which utilizes a blood-alcohol threshold for driving, there is no similar scale for drivers who recently smoked marijuana.  As long as there are lawyers like Rockind out there to skillfully protect the rights of the accused, this will continue to be a problem for the courts.  Perhaps its time for the legislature to act on this issue instead of leaving it up to local law enforcement, prosecutors and municipal judges.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

An Ally on Tumblr

At fandomsandfeminism.tumblr.com a question about solidarity was posed by harshitkumar...
Will not supporting incest make an LGBT supporter hypocritical ? If you look at it, he or she is arguing for sexual freedom for two consenting adults. Now if they happen to be blood related and this makes them lose the support of the the said person, will he or she be hypocritical?
If we're going to take the rights of consenting adults seriously, consanguineous lovers can't be excluded. 

The blogger answered...
On a totally theoretical level, I have no problem with two consenting, fully aware, informed adults having a relationship just because they share a certain percentage of genetic material.

Good.

However, we have to remember that a lot of incest (though certainly not all) is a product of abuse and happens in abusive contexts.

Well, yes, the world "incest" is applied to the two very different things of consensual sex and assault/abuse, but the person asking was talking about consensual sex. Do we ever say "We have to remember that a lot of intercourse is a product of abuse and happens in abusive contexts?" Do we comment on BDSM by saying a lot of handcuffing has been the product of tyranny or slavery? See Discredited Argument #9.
So….yeah. I mean, we need to be aware and supportive for victims of incestual rape, but I don’t think that incest in pure theory is inherently bad.
I'll take the support for sexual and relationship rights. A woman should be free to marry a woman, or two women, even if one is her sister. That's feminism.

Tumblr is full of fetish porn, which I'm not in any way knocking. I bring that up because it is great to see serious consideration of consanguinamory as part of the mix there.

An Ally on Tumblr

At fandomsandfeminism.tumblr.com a question about solidarity was posed by harshitkumar...
Will not supporting incest make an LGBT supporter hypocritical ? If you look at it, he or she is arguing for sexual freedom for two consenting adults. Now if they happen to be blood related and this makes them lose the support of the the said person, will he or she be hypocritical?
If we're going to take the rights of consenting adults seriously, consanguineous lovers can't be excluded. 

The blogger answered...
On a totally theoretical level, I have no problem with two consenting, fully aware, informed adults having a relationship just because they share a certain percentage of genetic material.

Good.

However, we have to remember that a lot of incest (though certainly not all) is a product of abuse and happens in abusive contexts.

Well, yes, the world "incest" is applied to the two very different things of consensual sex and assault/abuse, but the person asking was talking about consensual sex. Do we ever say "We have to remember that a lot of intercourse is a product of abuse and happens in abusive contexts?" Do we comment on BDSM by saying a lot of handcuffing has been the product of tyranny or slavery? See Discredited Argument #9.
So….yeah. I mean, we need to be aware and supportive for victims of incestual rape, but I don’t think that incest in pure theory is inherently bad.
I'll take the support for sexual and relationship rights. A woman should be free to marry a woman, or two women, even if one is her sister. That's feminism.

Tumblr is full of fetish porn, which I'm not in any way knocking. I bring that up because it is great to see serious consideration of consanguinamory as part of the mix there.

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.

Categories