More Reunited Siblings in the News

We recently noted a story about twins living on different continents discovering each other and reuniting. Now here's an Associated Press article I found at news.yahoo.com by Regina Garcia Cano about five siblings reconnecting.

The lives of five brothers and sisters born in North Dakota who were separately adopted at infancy took the twists and turns that 50 years bring. Some moved to different states; some married; some had children. But none of them ever knew the others existed.

Then, the obituary of their biological mother presented a clue. And when they finally met, one brother realized he wasn't so unfamiliar with one of his siblings. John Maixner had been greeted a half a dozen times or so by his sister at their local Walmart in Dickinson, N.D., where she has worked for 23 years.

Again, this is not a Genetic Sexual Attraction article, but there are some things to note (especially when you consider that up to 50% of people in a reunion/introduction do experience GSA)...

"February 19 was the first time I heard her voice," Handtmann told The Associated Press Wednesday. "I will never forget that day."

They arranged to meet at Handtmann's home in Bismarck, N.D.

"It was unbelievable," Bullinger said. "We are in our 50s. I was so nervous to meet her, and when I opened that door, I didn't know what to say. You don't know what to do. It was so special."

And...

All five siblings reunited for the first time at Handtmann's home in October. John Blankendall, 53, drove from Tennessee and Sandy Watkins, 54, flew in from California.

"It gives me goose bumps," Bullinger said. "So many emotions — you cried and you laughed. It's just wonderful. I haven't quit smiling," she said.

They agreed to take a DNA test. The results showed they are full siblings, meaning they share the same biological father as well.

Maixner's adoptive father passed away shortly before he got a call from the adoption agency. He spent Christmas with Bullinger, her husband and her adoptive parents.

His unlimited-calls cellphone plan came in handy after meeting his siblings.

"We talk every couple of days," he said.

Reunions happen, even when you think they wouldn't or couldn't. Two of the siblings actually were seeing each other in-person and didn't know their relation. What if they had started dating?

Here's Katie Kindelan of ABC News covering the same story.

When Handtmann told him about their other siblings and showed him Bullinger's picture, Maixner had his jaw-dropping moment when he recognized the Walmart employee.

Soon Maixner and Bullinger were making up for the lost time they spent as anonymous customer and employee.

"We exchanged phone numbers and went to Perkins and had coffee and got to know each other," Maixner said of his younger sister.

All five siblings - brother John Blankendall, in Tennessee, and Sandy Watkins, in California - met face-to-face for the first time in October.

"I walked in and I was just kind of speechless," Maixner said. "The conversation got going after a while, but we all just looked at each other and we all looked alike."

I'm glad they found each other.

Read more »

Posted in: GSA,reunion,siblings

Polyamory as a Sexual Orientation

I'm bumping this up because Facebook has, thankfully, moved beyond the gender binary. That is a great step. Facebook should become more accommodating of relationship diversities as well.o

Ann E Tweedy of the Hamline University School of Law has this paper available for download on polyamory as a sexual orientation. Here's what the abstract says...

This Article examines, from a theoretical standpoint, the possibility of expanding the definition of “sexual orientation” in employment discrimination statutes to include other disfavored sexual preferences, specifically polyamory. First, it examines the current, very narrow definition of sexual orientation, which is limited to orientations that are based on the sex of those to whom one is attracted, and explores some of the conceptual and functional problems with the current definition. Next the Article looks at the possibility of adding polyamory to current statutory definitions of sexual orientation, examining whether polyamory is a sufficiently embedded identity to be considered a sexual orientation and the degree of discrimination that polyamorists face. After concluding that such an expansion would be reasonable, the Article briefly outlines some issues for further investigation, including potential policy implications and the conflicting evidence as to whether polyamorists want specific legal protections.

We have previously discussed the expansion of the acronymn LGBT. Personally, I think a useful inclusive term is gender, sexuality, and relationship diversities (GSRD). Isn't it obvious from thousands of years of human history that some people are polyamorous, just like they are left-handed or heterosexual. Even if they are seeing only one person, or nobody at all, some people simply are polyamorous as part of their identity. Some people couldn't be monogamous under the threat of ostracism, shaming, loss of employment, loss of marriage, loss of child custody, loss of their wealth, etc. Trying to force people into monogamy is hurtful to all involved.

Yes, there are people who have been comfortable and fulfilled in monogamous or polyamorous relationships, but that doesn't mean that there aren't people who are polyamorous, just like the existence of bisexuals does not mean that there are no heterosexuals or gays.

Poly people should be as free as anyone else to share love, sex, residence, and, if they want, marriage with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination. That's why we need full marriage equality and why the US Supreme Court needs to rule for the rights of all adults.

Read more »

Posted in: academia,help,polyamory

Valentine's Day

Valentine's Day is here again. Many people will be getting married. Married people will be celebrating their anniversaries, or simply having a night out, as will other people hoping to get married someday, or maybe just enjoying being together in public.

If you are in such a situation, good for you and enjoy it.

Whether you are or not, take a moment to think about all of the people who can’t marry the person or person(s) they love, or can’t so much as hold hands in public without being accosted. Think about the people, consenting adults, who have to completely hide their relationships because they could be sent to prison for simply having sex in private. Think about the people who have to hide who they are because, where they live, they could be killed for being who they are. Think about the people who can’t accept gifts from their their lover(s) at work, or even a loving comment on their Facebook wall, because it would out them and get them fired.

This is what goes on because some people are being denied their rights to share sex, love, residence, and marriage. A woman can’t marry the woman she loves in most states in the US. She can in Canada and some other countries, but most countries still deny this freedom to marry. Hopefully, the US will change that as national policy soon. At least some victories are happening around the US. In most of the world, a man can’t marry both of the women he loves, despite both women being in favor of such a marriage.

The people in these interviews can't have legally recognized marriages anywhere in the world, with perhaps one or two exceptions, and we need full marriage equality before people like Linda, Melissa, and Matthew can tie the knot.

So enjoy Valentine’s Day if you are able, but think for a moment about the people who will only be able to fully enjoy theirs when we have full marriage equality so that an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, is free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults without prosecution, persecution, or discrimination.

Read more »

Posted in: lack of equality harms,love,marriage equality

Unaware Twins Living on Different Continents Reunited

There’s no indication that Genetic Sexual Attraction is a factor in this case, but this situation is a reminder of how the conditions that bring about GSA do happen, no matter how improbable. Rich McHugh of ABC News reports in this article that I found at news.yahoo.com…

Imagine growing up as an adopted child, and at age 25 getting at Facebook message from a stranger who looks exactly like you.

That's what happened to Samantha Futerman, an actress living in Los Angeles.

"On February 1st, 2013, I got message on Facebook from a girl in London," Futerman said. "It said she had seen me in YouTube video, then after looking my name up online, saw that we were both adopted, and born on the same day, in the same city. When I saw her profile, it was crazy. She looked just like me."

The girl who had sent the message was Anais Bordier, a French fashion designer in London.

Modern communications and travel make reunions more likely.

They had their DNA tested to erase any doubt.

The result proved what their faces told them all along: they were sisters.

Bordier said she had always felt as though something was missing in her life. She never knew that, after she and her sister were born, they were each placed in separate foster care agencies and adopted separately.

I’m glad they found each other.

The sexual part of GSA will usually only come into play depending on sexual orientation. For example, if two sisters who have no sexual attraction to other women are reunited, their reunification/introduction isn’t likely to cause an exception. However, related aspects can come into play, such as experiencing a strong bond.

Read more »

Posted in: consanguineous,GSA,reunion,siblings,sister-sister

Defending Stephanie Seymour

(Time to bump this entry up to congratulate Stephanie Seymour on being the the new face of Estée Lauder. ALSO see update at the end.)

Here’s an example of someone trashing the beautiful Stephanie Seymour for daring to be affectionate with her son in public. I’ll edit the quotes slightly to remove language that some people still get upset about.

One of the things that has me saying “Are you f------ stupid?” are the photos of Stephanie Seymour and her son.

She goes on…

The photos do look like she’s making out with her son. A little creepy…yes!

Why is that creepy?

Is it normal for a son to cop a feel of the boobies?

For some people, yes. Jealous?

Turns out her son is gay. Which apparently makes it ok to make out with your hot Mom on a beach.

It’s okay for any adult to be affectionate with any consenting adult on a beach. It should certainly be legal.

My question is, “Are you f------ stupid?”

Maybe they were simply having some minimal affection. Or maybe it is a sign of more. What’s the problem? What’s stupid is trashing others for sharing love and affection.

I have to admit, I’m vey curious to hear your thoughts on the pics.

My thought is that it is too bad that everyone can’t be on such good terms with their parent or child.

February 12, 2014 UPDATE...

This photo shoot has fingers wagging now.

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,coming out,consanguineous,incest,love,media,mother-son,prejudice,stigma

We Get Letters About Religion and Consanguinamory

This blog takes a neutral approach to both religion and skepticism. We appreciate any support for relationship rights and full marriage equality from a religious perspective.

Submitted to you (mostly) without comment is this comment that was left here by "Inkaboutit4u"...

From: Inkaboutit4u.com [That site may be considered Not Safe For Work]

Great stories. Love and sex, sex and love., which come first? Sex drive promotes sex, and great love promotes sexual desire.

God at creation was very pro-incest. But people over time get major nudity and sexual hangups and pass their personal hangup onto others. God wants us to love one another and humans are best lovers when they are making love sexually. Sex is great because it bring people close together lovers.

Adam and Eve were brother/sister because they had the same DNA closer then any incest couple today.
Abraham and Sarah were brother/sister marriage. All animals and humans were created "one male, one female" meaning everything God created all had incest.

This is how God chose it to be. But today we copy evil, sinful, confused, corupt thinking Adam and Eve and in everyway God creation plan is made illegal. God want all people to be nudist. But if you walk down the street nude they put you in Jail.

God grave all creation at creation public sexual freedom to have many sex partners over a life time. But if today you have sex in public they put you in jail. If you marry many people today they put you in jail.

God given sexual freedom and even Israel always had legal prostitution but today many place they outlaw prostitution and put you in jail.

God was very pro-incest at creation but today they want to put you in jail it you have incest.

So they make major law against every part of God's creation plan. And then they think they are "godly" for doing so. Totally backwards.

Today Christians are under the Law of Love, Not some long list of Jewish laws from the OT Bible.

We are not under Lev 18 Jewish laws against incest made 2600 years after creation. These laws were for the Jewish people only and were for a special place and special time. Most of them it says Don't do this because it may bother so and so. Remember they were living in Tents and had NO privacy at all. They had lots of sexual hang ups.

Today we are "NEW CREATION" in Christ , the same as Adam and Eve were a "NEW CREATION" in God. We have the same freedoms as Adam and Eve and all creation had before they sinned.

But we live in a world that obeys evil, confused, corrupt thinking Adam and Eve thinking after they sinned and disobey God. and they think that is spiritual instead. The opposite is true.

Thoughts? See what I wrote about Adam and Eve here.

Read more »

Discussing Consanguinamory

Consanguinamorous relationships are often ignorantly dismissed as dysfunctional, sick, or abusive, and sometimes the "incest" discussions found at porn sites do little to dispel that impression. However, and Kindred Spirits forum, which is NOT a porn forum, the discussions are sincere and reflect how real, beautiful, and in many ways, "normal" consanguinamorous relationships can be.

For example, here's a woman describing her relationship that was initiated through Genetic Sexual Attraction...

For [us] the most important things are the respect that we have for each other and remembering to always listen. [He] is my best friend, my partner and my lover. We have often wondered if the reason the sex is so good was because of the brother/sister element. We decided that we just fit together perfectly for what ever reason. Being non judgemental of each others desires and taking time to learn about what we both need.

He walks in the door after work and we are both just happy to be in each others company again especially knowing that we would give almost everything up to protect what we have.

Why would anyone want to kill such love? Why should they have to hide? Why shouldn't they be free to be open about their love and, if they want, to marry? There's no good reason.

If you want to discuss consanguinamory (consensual incest), I know of no better forum than Kindred Spirits, which is free. But if you join, be sure to immediately read and follow all of the rules, or you'll be kicked right off. If you are a Friend of Lily, it can be very helpful to join with others to discuss life in general, as well as the love you have or had.

At their site, this is the icon for Frequently Asked Questions...

This is the icon you use to register.


 And this is the icon you click to sign in.
 

Read more »

Posted in: brother-sister,consanguineous,GSA,help,incest,love,siblings

Search Phrases of the Day

Two recent search phrases people used to find this blog caught my attention.

The first one was “consensual adult incest support group.”

I am not aware of an in-person support group for people who are in consanguinamorous relationships, although I do remember someone planning one, and couples I helped to introduce to each other have met up in person.

I am aware of few online forums. The one I most strongly recommend is the free (and porn-free) Kindred Spirits forum. If you want to join that forum, be sure to read and immediately follow all of the rules, or you won’t last long there.

The second search phrase was “I saw my grandmother have incest with my uncle.”

I’m going to assume from the choice of words that we’re talking about consensual sex between adults. After all, it would be hard to have a child old enough to do that search if one was not an adult. It wouldn’t be incest if this was a grandmother from one parent having sex with another parent, so this was probably about a woman have sex with her own adult son. Even then, if he was adopted or a stepson, it isn’t incest in the biological sense, although it may be from a social or legal sense.

The fact is, most adults have sex. Sometimes, they have sex in front of other people or where others see them, whether they intended other people to see them or not. And some of those adults having sex are closely related. Provided they weren’t having sex in a public place or in someone else’s home, I would be more concerned about whether or not the people having sex were cheating on anyone than their relation to each other. Even then, other people having consensual sex isn’t really a matter in which one should interfere. Being invited to join is another matter. Here are my recommendations to someone who has discovered that someone they know is consanguinamorous.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,consanguineous,help,mother-son

Now is the Time - Solidarity is Best

This recent piece coincided with something I had meant to write. It is about solidarity.

This blog, and the related Facebook page, calls for relationship rights for all adults, including full marriage equality. When we say that an adult should be free to marry any and all consenting adults, we actually mean it. We have not hidden that.

I've had more than one polyamorous person think that this is great... when they realize it means I support the polygamous (or polyamorous) freedom to marry... then react negatively when they realize it means I support the consanguineous freedom to marry.

Yes, I do. I support the right of an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, to marry any and all consenting adults. So yes, I support the right of a white woman to marry a man of African ancestry, or 30-year-old man to marry a 60-year-old woman, or a man to marry a man, or a woman to marry two men, or a woman to marry the half-brother she first met when they were both adults. None of these marriages hurt anyone else. None of these marriages hurt anyone, at least not in and of themselves. There are people who aren't right for each other, there are abusers, but that has to do with the individuals involved, and not the general freedom to marry.

There are patriarchal polygynists who want support for their "plural marriages" but do not want to associate with anyone or anything standing up for the rights of LGBT people, or polyandrists, or any non-polygynist polyamorists.

There are monogamist gays and lesbians who dismiss someone else's need for polyamory or for the need of cousin couples to marry.

There are cousin couples who grew up together as much as any siblings who do not support the rights of half-siblings who did not grow up together to get married or even just be together without being criminally prosecuted.

There are many other examples like this. Everyone has their own interests, priorities, likes and dislikes, prejudices, and biases. Some people care only about their needs, not those of anyone else.

But we (including many LGBT people, and many people who are in or seeking plural marriage, a polygamous marriage, a polyamorous relationship, or a consanguineous relationship) are people who support the rights of all adults. We support full marriage equality, not just a freedom to marry for this group or that group. A decent person does not have to like the idea of every one of these relationships to support the rights of adults to have the relationships they want. A person doesn't have to want something for themselves or a loved one to have compassion for others who do need it.

Solidarity is:

1. The right thing to do

AND

2. It will prove to be the most effective way of securing rights.

Even some people who agree with #1 do not agree with #2.

Recently, a polyamorous person expressed to me her concern that my support for consanguinamorous relationships is a threat to the rights of poly people. Consanguinamory just isn't supposed to be how a relationship works, she said to me publicly. But haven't we heard these same things from some monogamist LGBT people about polyamorists? Shoot, we hear it about the "BT" in "LGBT". "Drop the bisexuals and transgendered in order to further the rights of lesbians and gays!" It is not only an awful thing to do, it is a false promise. There's the real slippery slope: allowing those who oppose equality to deny rights to anyone. 

But I was told that I was asking for too much in asking for full marriage equality, that by insisting that consanguineous lovers have their rights, too, that I was going to hurt the cause for poly people and there could be a swing of the proverbial pendulum, essentially back to the hetero-monogamous married only climate of condemning and denying rights to poly people, LGBT people, unmarried lovers, etc. Texas was cited as an example because of the recent vote on abortion restrictions. Texas is an outlier, though. Texas criminalizes consensual adult sex between first cousins, who can legally marry in about half of the states. Remember it was Texas law criminalizing "sodomy" that was stuck down in Lawrence vs. Texas. That was as recently as 2003. Meanwhile, just a year later, the limited same-gender freedom to marry began in Massachusetts after a long-building momentum.

Momentum is strong and increasing. We're not going to see a reduction in LGBT or poly rights; we're going to see a continuing advance. Including rights for the consanguinamorous will not jeopardize this; rather, standing up for relationship rights for all will strengthen the rights for LGBT and poly people. That is true because the people are evolving, for the most part, not because they no longer have their own aversions to relationships different than their own (many of them still do), but because they can think and they have thought through it and realized that consenting adults should be themselves and have their relationships and not be treated as second class citizens for doing so. When someone says we should support rights for consenting adults ...except for consanguinamorous relationships they are actually undermining LGBT and poly rights and the related freedoms to marry, because the people to whom they are making their appeal find the appeal insincere.

Almost all who do oppose or have opposed interracial, same-gender, polyamorous, and consanguineous sexuality/relationships/marriage have done so for two primary reasons:

1. personal disgust
2. their religion

Sometimes those two reasons are indistinguishable.

But when people are calmly but firmly asked to think it through, and their concerns are addressed, they realize that there is no good reason to oppose consensual relationships between consenting adults. When someone insists that it is still OK or right to oppose consanguineous relationships, they are almost invariably bringing back an argument that they just dismissed when it comes to other freedoms to marry, as Greenfield points out. To say that it is permissible to deny consanguineous lovers their rights, someone actually undermines the case for their own rights. Specifically, a polyamorous person runs a risk because the consanguineous freedom to marry takes less paperwork and adjustment than adjusting for polyamory. Also, more people have experienced consanguineous experimentation (at the very least) than have experienced polyfidelity or open coupling. 10-15% of people in their early 20s will confide in surveys to having had consensual sexual contact with a siblings. The percentages increase in older age groups (due to more opportunities as time goes by.) That doesn't include contact with cousins, aunts, uncles, or parents. Some of those people enter into lasting relationships.

Now is the time to push for the rights of ALL adults. The bigots are in retreat. There's no going back. There may be some isolated backlash, but this kind of prejudice is dying out... literally. When we respond to the stubborn bigots by saying yes, discrimination against some adults is OK, the remaining observers, who are the ones who can be persuaded to support rights for polyamorists and LGBT people, are going to lose respect for the argument for equality. So the best response to "What's next?" is "Rights for all consenting adults. Why is that a problem?" The bigots won't have a good reason. Put them on the defensive, and they'll lose.

Consenting adults of any relation can be together in Rhode Island. There's no reason they shouldn't be free to marry, and no reason why first cousins, who can legally marry in California, should not be free to be together in Texas. There's no reason for Utah to criminalize polyamory. There's no good reason for any state to deny consenting adults their fundamental rights to be together and to marry.

Those who oppose equality and have cited my blog have never explained what is wrong with what I have argued. Conversely, people have told me that I have opened and changed their minds about same-gender relationships, about polyamorous relationships, and about consanguineous relationships. I have received relieved and thankful messages from people who are so happy to find that someone speaks for them. I will not throw these people under the bus.

These disputes are nothing new to the civil rights movement. Going all the way back to when African-Americans were still enslaved, there were disputes about what rights to seek and how to seek them. "Do we fight for desegregation? For interracial marriage?" Those fighting for women's rights have had similar disputes. "Do we fight for lesbians or not?"To this day, there are people who say civil rights are for African-Americans. Not for gays, not even for Mexicans. Don't play that game. Stand up for the rights of all adults. You don't have to like the idea of interracial relationships, or same-gender relationships, or polyamorous relationships, or consanguineous relationships to realize that people should have their rights.

Standing up for full marriage equality is not only the principled thing to do, it is the practical thing as well. There are people who are suffering right now because their loving, lasing, happy, healthy relationship is denied equality or even criminalized. This is not right, and it needs to end.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,freedom to marry,marriage equality,myths,solidarity

How Nonmonogamous People Can Avoid Trouble

Believe it or not, there are still criminal laws in many places criminalizing consensual sex and relationships between adults.

It doesn't matter to them how loving, happy, and lasting the relationships are. It apparently doesn't matter to the people interfering that every dollar or minute they spend trying to stop consenting adults from loving each other is a dollar or minute that could instead go into protecting people, especially children, against predators.

In addition to the persecution and prosecution of consanguinamorous people, polyamorists, polygamists, and other ethical nonmonogamists can face discrimination and even prosecution.

Some awesome people put together a very helpful lists of state laws for polyamorous people in the US or considering moving to the US. First, note the disclaimer that there is an ever-present at the bottom of this blog. I'll mostly repeat it here:

The focus of this blog is consenting adults. This blog does not advocate anyone engage in activity that is currently illegal in their jurisdiction; it does advocate changing or repealing any law that prevents the freedom of association, love, and full marriage equality for adults. This blog condemns rape, sexual assault, and child molestation, and does not provide medical, therapeutic, legal, financial, or cooking advice. This blog links to other sites for informational purposes; it does not necessarily support everything at those links.

OK, with that out of the way, I'll continue as a friend.

Please keep in mind that while a state may not have a law against "fornication" (sex outside of a legal marriage), "adultery" (when a married person has sex with someone other than her or his legal spouse), or cohabitation, it might still criminalize consensual sex between close relatives (whether genetically related, steprelation, or adoptive). For more information about that, see here. Also, laws on the books may be rarely or selectively enforced, so it it s good to consult an attorney familiar with the laws of a state as well as actual criminal and civil cases in that state and general legal climate.

While most nonmonogamists never get prosecuted or sued, the threat is always there in many places.

With states that allow a legally married spouse to get an advantage in a divorce by citing adultery or sue their spouse's lover for financial compensation, the only way to be sure of avoiding a problem is to simply avoid the risk entirely by not getting involved with someone who is legally married, or, if you are legally married, not getting involved with anyone other than your spouse. Even if everyone is enthusiastic at first or at the time of the sex or relationship, someone can still use the law to get what they see as revenge should things tum cold.

State By State


All 50 US states have statutes against bigamy/polygamy (multiple licensed marriages). In most states, bigamy is a felony.

In the following states, bigamy is a misdemeanor. However, once the penalty is paid, you are back at square one.

Alaska
Arkansas
Hawaii (petty misdemeanor-- 30 days in jail)
Iowa
Maine
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Jersey
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island (misdemeanor, $1000)
Tennessee
Texas

The following lists are ordered by which states have the most promise statutorily. The first list is the best, the last list is the worst.

The following states, have no statutes against  fornication, adultery, or cohabitation, and they also do not recognize common-law marriages (which assigns marital status to people who might not want to be considered married).

California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington

The following states have statutes that concern adultery, but none for fornication, cohabitation, or common-law marriage. In some of them adultery is grounds for divorce only. In others the offending spouse simply forfeits any rights to the innocent spouse's estate. In the rest of them, adultery is a crime that can only be prosecuted by the offended spouse. In a successful polygamous relationship, these need not be obstructive. If the relationship fails, however, the statutory adulterer will be charged.

Connecticut
Delaware
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland (Adultery results in a $10 fine and is grounds for divorce)
Missouri
New Jersey
Ohio
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas (Texas does recognize common-law marriages, but apparently only if they are registered with the county clerk)
Vermont

Both states make adultery and fornication misdemeanors, although in Illinois the conduct must be "open and notorious." For interest's sake, we have listed all of the states whose statutes are no worse than Georgia or Illinois. This only means that in these states you are as likely as not, to be able to find a lawyer who will talk to you.

Arizona
Georgia
Illinois
Michigan
Minnesota
New Hampshire (New Hampshire recognizes common-law marriages, but only for inheritance purposes after death)
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota

The following states have laws against cohabitation.

Alabama
Alaska
Arkansas
Florida
Massachusetts
Mississippi
Nebraska
North Carolina
South Carolina
Virginia
West Virginia
Wyoming

The following states recognize common-law marriages, or else make adultery a felony, and are not on the previous lists.

Colorado
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Montana
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Utah
Washington D.C.
Wisconsin

How do people minimize the risk of losing in court? What can nonmonogamists do to protect themselves? Any of these steps might help...

1) Consult a lawyer. I am not a lawyer. A criminal defense or family law attorney might be someone well worth consulting.

2) Move to more enlightened states or countries.

3) Be careful who you tell and what you tell them. In the US, we have a Constitutional right against self-incrimination (see 5th Amendment) and the right to remain silent when arrested by law enforcement. It's a good idea when dealing with police to give them polite, brief "yes" or "no" or "I don't know" or "I don't remember" answers unless even one of those could incriminate you. In the US, you also have the right to an attorney and it is a good idea speak up and ask for a lawyer if you're held or taken in by police. Also in the US, unless there is imminent danger to someone, you don't have the let police into your home without a search warrant, and even search warrants can have limits. YOU may think something is obvious and gives you away, the police may even have figured it out, but staying silent about it can still protect you.

4) Be careful what you document. Many lovers enjoy taking video or pictures of themselves having fun with each other, but for the nonmonogamous, such media, if it falls into the wrong hands, can be trouble.

5) Have a cover story. Anticipate questions, whether from those you know you or those who don't who might not approve. Historically, it isn't unusual for a home to have three or more adults.

6) Know your risk in raising children. Not only will children have to deal with the prejudice of others, but children may also provide testimony that goes against you, often unwittingly.

7) Stick to private places and lock the door when you get to the fun.

Note that most ethicists say it is OK to lie to authorities who are trying to enforce unjust laws or policies. An extreme example is a Nazi SS officer asking you, "Are you hiding any Jews here?" It was ethical to say "No." Well, I think that applies here, too, though the situation is not as extreme. It is nobody else's business if adults are having consensual sex or relationships.

This advice shouldn't even be necessary, but until we get to the point where we have relationship rights for all adults, including full marriage equality, nonmonogamists should think about protecting themselves. Of course, some level of trouble is necessary to make change. Laws need to be overturned in courts or changed by legislatures, but it is up to each set of lovers to decide for themselves if they want to come out of the closet and to push for those things. The more other people realize that ethical nonomonogamy is a reality all around them, the sooner the persecution will be greatly reduced.

Police officers usually have some wiggle-room when it comes to investigating or arresting people can can look the other way if they choose. Prosecutors can choose not to prosecute. Judges can dismiss cases. Juries can refuse to convict (research jury nullification). So I beg these people to let consenting adults love each other without harassment, without prosecution.

Do you have any suggestions? Any tales to tell about what you've done to protect yourself? What do you think, dear reader? Leave a comment or email me.

Read more »

Posted in: bigamy,boundaries,cheating,FAQ,lack of equality harms,law,love,open,persecution,polyamory,polygamy,prejudice,swinging,US

How Consanguineous Lovers Can Avoid Trouble

Believe it or not, there are still criminal laws in many places criminalizing consensual sex between adults, and there are still police officers who will investigate people for this "crime," still prosecutors who will take the case before a court, and still judges and jurors who will convict people and sentence them to prison.

It doesn't matter to them how loving the relationships are. It doesn't matter if they love each other more than they could love others, it doesn't matter if the lovers didn't even meet each other until they were adults. It apparently doesn't matter to the people interfering that every dollar or minute they spend trying to stop consenting adults from loving each other is a dollar or minute that could instead go into protecting people, especially children, against predators.

In addition to this persecution of consanguinamorous people, there aren't any protections against other forms of discrimination against the consanguinamorous, such as employment discrimination. There are still many states that don't have protections for LGBT people, either, and polyamorous people are even less protected than monogamous LGBT people.

I sometimes forget that people don’t follow the news and law as closely as I do for this blog, so they may be unaware of these things. So I want to share with you what I've learned.

First, note the disclaimer that there is an ever-present at the bottom of this blog. I'll mostly repeat it here:

The focus of this blog is consenting adults. This blog does not advocate anyone engage in activity that is currently illegal in their jurisdiction; it does advocate changing or repealing any law that prevents the freedom of association, love, and full marriage equality for adults. This blog condemns rape, sexual assault, and child molestation, and does not provide medical, therapeutic, legal, financial, or cooking advice. This blog links to other sites for informational purposes; it does not necessarily support everything at those links.

OK, with that out of the way, I'll continue as a friend.

The vast majority of people who have consensual sex with a close relative never get "caught." 10-15% of people in their early 20s will confide in surveys to having had consensual sexual contact with a sibling. The percentages rise in older age groups. That's just the people who will confide in the surveys, and doesn't include being with aunts, uncles, parents, etc.. The percentages increase in older age groups because there are more opportunities over the years. Many of those situations involve a moment or a fling or something that just lasts for season, but in other cases they are long-term romances and lifelong spousal relationships.

While most never get prosecuted, the threat is always there in so many places, and I regularly find news reports of such prosecutions. When people do get caught and publicly persecuted and, often, prosecuted, in almost every case, the lovers were outed and handed over to ax-grinding prosecutors due to one or more of a few factors (presented in no particular order):

1) Self-incrimination.
2) Being ratted out by a claimed witness.
3) Testing and reporting of a child's DNA.
4) Being caught in the act by law enforcement.

In other words, it isn’t like the police come door to door, scan crowds in public, or are doing stakeouts to catch consanguineous lovers breaking laws against consensual incest. That's the good news. But let's take a closer look at the bad news.

Self-incrimination. One of the problems is that people either "confess" or tell law enforcement way too much that they don't have to. One or more of them admit the relationship, often not aware it is (still, stupidly) illegal where they are, wrongly thinking if they explain it was consensual then of course the police will leave them alone. For a real-life example of this, see this posting. Law enforcement may also get a hold of some media (love letters, homemade videos) that documents the sexual aspect of the relationship. That's right... doing something so many other lovers do freely can be used against these consensual relationships.

Ratted out. Someone outside of the relationship, whether a nosy neighbor, a malicious ex, a jealous or envious family member, even a professional/academic/social rival sees something, hears something, or just gets a hunch based on how the lovers are smitten with each other and they contact the authorities. See this example.

Child. If someone dares to exercise their reproductive rights and have a child together, the DNA of that child is proof of parentage. Contrary to popular myths, most children born to close relatives are healthy and do not look any different than any other child. Many of the ones I've seen are beautiful children. But, if the child's DNA is tested and the results showing the parents are consanguineous reported to the authorities, depending on the circumstances it may be used as evidence against the lovers. See this example.

Caught in public. Many, many people have had sex in "public" places, usually without getting caught. Depending on the circumstances, police might send the lovers on their way. But, if in checking identification and asking questions, the police determine that the lovers are closely related (see "self-incrimination" above), they might arrest the lovers even when they would have otherwise let them go. See this example.

So what can those who enjoy consanguinamory do to protect themselves? Any of these steps might help.

1) Consult a lawyer. I am not a lawyer. A criminal defense or family law attorney might be someone well worth consulting.

2) Move to more enlightened states or countries. Moving also may get you away from those who are aware of your biological relation and would oppose your relationship. The best states in the US are Rhode Island and New Jersey. Perhaps the worst state is Texas, which technically criminalizes sex between first cousins.

3) Be careful who you tell and what you tell them. In the US, we have a Constitutional right against self-incrimination (see 5th Amendment) and the right to remain silent when arrested by law enforcement. It's a good idea when dealing with police to give them polite, brief "yes" or "no" or "I don't know" or "I don't remember" answers unless even one of those could incriminate you. In the US, you also have the right to an attorney and it is a good idea speak up and ask for a lawyer if you're held or taken in by police. Also in the US, unless there is imminent danger to someone, you don't have the let police into your home without a search warrant, and even search warrants can have limits. YOU may think something is obvious and gives you away, the police may even have figured it out, but staying silent about it can still protect you.

4) Be careful what you document. Many lovers enjoy taking video or pictures of themselves having fun with each other, but for the consanguinamorous, such media, if it falls into the wrong hands, can be trouble.

5) Have a cover story. Anticipate questions, whether from those you know you or those who don't who might not approve. There's nothing unusual or unconventional about family members living together, going places together, or frequently visiting each other. In extreme situations, consanguineous lovers might want to take on "beards," meaning pretending to have a relationship with (even marrying) others to direct attention away from their "forbidden" relationship. If someone does this, it is better not to deceive the beard(s) but rather have an agreement with someone who is fully informed. An example of an ideal situation along these lines would be if two siblings from one family married two siblings from another family. Such marriages have always gone on and were even popular in some places in the past, whether as real marriages or as beard situations.

6) Know your risk in having biological children together. Many consanguineous lovers opt not to take the risk, either for genetic reasons or legal reasons (or, like other people, because they just plain preferred not to have children). In some places, a credible defense if DNA proves a child was born to close relatives is to claim that the child was conceived through using a turkey baster or condom or sex toy that resulted in artificial insemination (the claim would be that the male ejaculated onto or into the object, which was then inserted into the female). In such places, it is the actual sex act that is criminal, not having genetic children together.

7) Stick to private places and lock the door when you get to the fun.

Note that most ethicists say it is OK to lie to authorities who are trying to enforce unjust laws or polices. An extreme example is a Nazi SS officer asking you, "Are you hiding any Jews here?" It was ethical to say "No." Well, I think that applies here, too, though the situation is not as extreme. It is nobody else's business if adults are having consensual sex.

This advice shouldn't even be necessary, but until we get to the point where we have relationship rights for all adults, including full marriage equality, consanguinamorous people should think about protecting themselves. Of course, some level of trouble is necessary to make change. Laws need to be overturned in courts or changed by legislatures, but it is up to each set of lovers to decide for themselves if they want to come out of the closet to push for those things. I have seen at least two couples come out publicly on Facebook, which resulted, in at least one of the cases, them being given trouble by some of the people who were supposed to be their friends. But the more other people realize that consanguinamory is a reality all around them, the sooner the persecution will be greatly reduced.

Police officers usually have some wiggle-room when it comes to investigating or arresting people can can look the other way if they choose. Prosecutors can choose not to prosecute. Judges can dismiss cases. Juries can refuse to convict (research jury nullification). So I beg these people to let consenting adults love each other without harassment, without prosecution.

Do you have any suggestions? Any tales to tell about what you've done to protect yourself, or being caught, or catching someone? What do you think, dear reader? Leave a comment or email me.

Read more »

Posted in: consanguineous,FAQ,GSA,help,incest,lack of equality harms,law,persecution,prejudice,prosecution,stigma

Polyandry as a Theme in a Plymouth, England Theatre

Martin Freeman reports at plymouthherald.co.uk about a woman and her play... 

“In parts of northern India there are 300 women to 1,000 men,” says Sharmila [Chauhan]. “Polyandry is not normal but it is becoming more common.”

The latest new drama to come to the Drum, Theatre Royal Plymouth, might sound heavy stuff but is not all darkness.

“There are lighter moments. It is turned on its head.

“It looks at the relation between the husbands. There is a feeling of brotherhood and tenderness.

“It is intense but there are moments that are surprisingly funny.”

Sounds like it would  be interesting.

She says, though, that polyandry and matriarchal societies are not as rare as many believe, especially if you travel in history or in time. “I went to Kerala (southern India), to see the way of life of the Nair people who used to be matriarchal. I have done lots of research about polyandrous communities across the world in Africa, parts of the Far east and south Asia.

It is happening in polyamorous homes all over the world.

The Husbands is at the Drum, Theatre Royal Plymouth, from Wednesday to Saturday, February 12-15.

If you see it, let us know what you thought!

Read more »

Posted in: polyandry,polygamy,UK

Today's Example of Insufficient Reporting

From news-mail.com.au comes this headline....

Jail threat for incest sex offender who broke order

As we know, where consanguinamory is still criminalized, "incest" can mean a variety of things. Unfortunately, the text of the article doesn't shed much light on the situation.

A REGISTERED sex offender who failed to comply with his reporting conditions before missing two court dates now has two months of jail hanging over his head after facing court.

The 24-year-old man, who can not be named, became a reportable offender in 2008 after being convicted of incest.

No more information about the original case is given. In 2008, he was 18 years old, give or take. Assuming the original case was about something that happened in Queensland, it isn't criminal to have sex with someone who is 16 years or older unless "sodomy" is involved or unless they are closely related, which are ridiculous restrictions. So, it is entirely possible this man to have been convicted of "incest" for having had consensual sex with a 17-year-old sibling, half-sibling, nephew or niece, whether they were raised together or not. If that is what happened, it shouldn't have been a criminal matter in the first place,  he shouldn't be a "sex offender," and nobody should care that he didn't report.

On the other hand, he could have been molesting or assaulting a 3-year-old, in which case he shouldn't be walking free at all right now.

But we have no way of knowing, because "incest" is applied to both situations, and the journalists who put this story online were probably just repeating what an insufficient court announcement said, without anyone asking for clarification.

Read more »

Posted in: Australia,consanguineous,incest,law,media

Will Utah Make Legislative Baby Steps?

After a federal judge did what should have been a no-brainer to everyone and slapped down Utah's criminalization of polyfidelity and polyamorous cohabitation, a state legislator is trying to make baby steps in the law, as reported by Antone Clark at standard.net...

Rep. Jerry Anderson, R-Price, said House Bill 56 was inspired by a federal judge's ruling in December striking down part of the state's law banning polygamy, following legal action brought by the stars of a TV reality series "Sister Wives." The court ruling threw out the state's section of law prohibiting cohabitation, saying it violates the constitutional guarantee of due process and religious freedom.

Not to mention freedom of association, right to privacy, etc.

His bill is only 29 lines long, and essentially changes the definition of cohabitation and then points out under existing law, bigamy is a third-degree felony.

Bigamy shouldn't be a crime unless it involves fraud. An adult should be free to marry any & all consenting adults. If someone is married and they are marrying another, that shouldn't be hidden from current spouses. Absent that sort of deception, there's no reason for polyamorists to be denied their fundamental rights.

He said the state's existing bigamy definition forces many people into the shadows. He said thousands of schoolchildren list their fathers as unknown, to avoid dealing with the implications of being in violation of the law.

He said the state's existing definition of bigamy puts police officers in a tough position.

Exactly. Criminalization of consensual adult relationships is destructive, causing many unnecessary problems.

This is a baby step. Really, any US state needs relationship rights, including full marriage equality, for all.

UPDATE: The bill is "dead" as the lawmakers sit around waiting for further court action. Sigh.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,bigamy,freedom to marry,law,politicians,polyamory,polygamy,Sister Wives,Utah

Tale as Old as Time

This blog is about relationship rights for all adults, especially the right to marry any and all consenting adults. It is not about criticizing nor promoting any philosophy towards religion, spiritual considerations, superstitions, the paranormal or supernatural, any religious text or writings/traditions/beliefs/practices/systems/organizations considered sacred, inspired, of authoritative by some, nor skepticism when it comes to such things.

There are both allies and opponents of relationship rights and full marriage equality in just about every religion and among those who claim no religion, and I welcome allies no matter what tradition, if any, they prefer or reject.

With that out of the way…

Considering the Bible as literature, which anyone can do whether they are a devout Christian, a Deist, a Hindu, an Atheist, or an Antitheist or take some other path, one can see that the Bible implies, outright portrays, and further addresses consanguineous sex.

Frequently, someone will ask “Where did Cain get his wife?” or “Did Adam and Eve’s children have sex with each other?” or some variation. Whether someone considers this speculation about fanciful myths or actual history is irrelevant to analyzing what the text itself says.



One common response says that there were other people aside from Adam and Eve, even claiming that Genesis 1:26-27 describes the creation of people other than Adam and Eve. That may work for someone who can find some other explanation for Genesis 3:20, which calls Eve the mother of all living, and other passages which indicate Adam and Eve were the parents of all humans.

Romans 5 says that sin and death came into the world through one man, Adam, and 1 Corinthians 15 says that in Adam all die. These passages imply that the Bible portrays every human as a descendant of Adam.  There’s a mention of Eve in the Apocrypha that agrees with this, in the prayer of Tobit (Tobit 8:6): "Thou madest Adam, and gavest him Eve his wife for a helper and a stay; of them came the seed of men…"

That the Bible portrays Adam and Eve as the ancestors of all humans is the interpretation publicly affirmed by a diverse group of Bible enthusiasts, who often vehemently disagree with each other on other matters about what the Bible says. For a few examples, see here, here, here, here, here, and here. Some of those sources disagree very much on other aspects of Genesis, especially the first few chapters, but agree as to the Bible teaching that Adam and Eve are the ancestors of all humans (and please note that Genesis 5:4 says Adam, in addition to the named sons, had other sons and daughters), and so it appears that the Bible portrays the origin of human beings as the result of consanguineous (incestuous) sex. Adam and Eve’s children reproduced with each other, if not also Adam and Eve.


It is also of note that the Bible portrays Noah, his wife, their three sons, and the sons' wives were the only human beings left (at least in that part of the world) after The Flood. (Genesis 6:18, 7:7, 9:1,7,18-19). Whether or not the Bible allows for a “local” Flood and other human beings in other parts of the world, Genesis 6:19 portrays least the people in that part of the world as all descended from Noah’s family. That would mean that the area (or the entire world) was repopulated through pairing up people who were no more distant than first cousins, coming from a pool of no more than eight total ancestors (Noah, his wife, and the parents of each of Noah's three sons.)

In the Biblical narrative, it wasn’t until much later that the first prohibition was placed on incest, in Leviticus, along with many other prohibitions (prohibitions on mixing fabrics, for example) that may have been listed to distinguish Israel from the other nations/tribes surrounding it. The narrative describes tribes who have left Egypt, where incest was common and accepted, and surrounded by other nations/tribes where incest was common and accepted. These were laws for the ancient theocracy of Israel. Also of note is that the concept of rights for women and children was very different than it is now; same goes for protecting the elderly. There was no domestic violence shelter, no secular county or state department with social workers attempting to protect people against child abuse or elderly abuse.  Children were literally the property of their parents to do with almost anything they wanted (note that the Torah says that parents must get permission from an authority to kill a disobedient child; presumably, there was no such requirement before.) As such, prohibitions on incest could have often been about preventing sexual assault or molestation.


However, applying the Biblical prohibitions to consensual sex, very few people who consider the Bible as an authority in their lives actually live by Mosaic law, nor want Mosaic law as national or state/province law. Secular laws should not keep any consenting adults from having sex or getting married.

Incest has always been a theme in literature and storytelling. See: Greek mythology. The fact is, incest has always been a part of life, in all socioeconomic and geographic areas. Even though a majority of people don't get involved, enough people do get involved in consensual incest that you know people who are involved.

Marrying a first cousin is legal and common in much of the world today, and for thousands of years most people married a first, second, or third cousin, once or twice removed or not.

From the perspective of science, DNA reveals inbreeding, and thus incest, in our past. In some cases, it might have helped to spread helpful characteristics.

Read more »

Posted in: brother-sister,children,consanguineous,cousins,human origins,incest,media,myths,religion,siblings

Cousins Can't Love Each Other Because it Makes Gay Babies

Or so says someone by the name of  Ropafadzo Mapimhidze writing at newsday.co.zw about the cruel treatment (including criminal conviction) recently of a couple of consenting adults in Zimbabwe, prosecuted for loving each other while being first cousins. You know, like hundred of millions of other people throughout history and alive today and legally married.

This story has generated so much debate and I decided to do a bit of research on reasons why incest is taboo, and why incest occurs despite the prohibition. And what the consequences are.

Where this is taboo, it is because of superstition, ignorance, legislative inertia, and control. It happens anyway because consenting adults love each other more than they pay attention to following unjust laws.

Such children can be born with extra toes, three eyes, and they can also grow to become homosexual, they may also have a low IQ and a potential to mentally harm future offspring, says the website. It also notes that such children can become people who are not able to interact with others or express love.

First of all, they were not prosecuted for having children. They were prosecuted for having sex. There is a difference. Also, all the columnist described above happens with unrelated lovers, too. In fact, we do not prevent people with obvious, serious, genetic diseases and birth defects from dating, having sex, having children, or marrying. But there are hundreds of millions of children from first cousins who are healthy, attractive, bright, and very social. Finally, there's nothing wrong with being gay.

The New York Times recently reported that first cousins are somewhat more likely than unrelated parents to have a child with a serious birth defect, mental retardation or genetic disease, but their increased risk is nowhere near as large as most people think, the newspaper quoted research done by some scientists.

But who needs scientists when we can listen to bigotry instead?

At least the piece does mention Genetic Sexual Attraction. Then it goes on to...

“Traditionally, such matters were dealt with by chiefs who then would find the rightful people to raise products of incest. We have to go back to our roots and see how best these matters can be dealt with the Zimbabwean way because these children are innocent victims of incest,” Kandiero said.

You know what makes children the biggest victims? When strangers use the power of unjust laws to force their parents apart and break up their home and brand their parents as criminals.

Read more »

Posted in: Africa,breaking up homes,children,consanguineous,cousins,GSA,lack of equality harms,myths,persecution,prejudice,prosecution,stigma,Zimbabwe

Will The Philippines Take a Step Backwards?

As reported by Xianne Arcangel at gmanetwork.com, lawmakers in the Philippines are considering legislation that would criminalize consanguinamory.

Incestuous affairs between family members 18 years old and above—even if done with consent—may soon be penalized if the proposed Anti-Incest bill is passed into law.

 

House Bill 3329, filed by Cagayan de Oro representative Rufus Rodriguez and his brother ABAMIN party-list representative Maximo Rodriguez Jr., seeks to penalize incest between consenting parties.

Very bad idea. Not only would it move the nation away from, rather than closer to, relationship rights for all adults, including full marriage equality, but criminalizing CONSENSUAL adult relationships will make it harder for law enforcement to stop ABUSERS because resources will be diverted AND witnesses and victims will be less willing to cooperate out of fear of law enforcement.

Rodriguez said in a statement on Sunday that an Anti-Incest law is needed to address the "rising" number of incestuous relationships occurring in families of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs).

That doesn't actually say why they should be criminalized. And the number probably isn't rising. They are just becoming more aware of the reality that has always been there.

Under Articles 37 and 38 of the Family Code of the Philippines, incestuous marriages are void ab initio—from the beginning—for being contrary to public policy.

That needs to be dumped.

The Anti-Rape Law of 1997, meanwhile, imposes the death penalty for rape when the victim is under 18 years old and the offender is a relative within the third civil degree, or when the offender is the common-law spouse of the parent of the abused individual.

So children are already protected.

Under HB 3329, incestuous sexual relations with consent between ascendants and descendants of any degree, as well as between brothers and sisters whether of the full or half blood will be prohibited and considered unlawful.  

There is no good reason for this.

In-laws, stepparents and stepchildren, adoptive parents and their children, as well as collateral blood relatives, whether legitimate or illegitimate up to the fourth civil degree, are also banned from having incestuous affairs.

Ridiculous.

Violators shall be punished with prision correccional, or imprisonment for from six months to six years. 

Why? To whom are they a threat?

Jhoanna Ballaran of the manilatimes.net also covered this news.

An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults.

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,consanguineous,incest,lack of equality harms,law,persecution,Philippines,prejudice

What Comes Naturally

Colleen Stufflebeem looks at the emotions that often result from the body’s physical reaction to sex. Early in her essay, she writes…

I’m not too cliché, but the idea of romance has always wooed me, though the necessity of love before sex never equated to waiting until marriage. In fact, I’ve always thought that’s a terrible idea.

Towards the end she writes…

But while this evidence proves that casual sex can cause heartbreak and mysterious genital burning, it also proves that humans are naturally inclined to fall in love and lust with multiple people. If we have the natural tendency to be polyamorous why impose unnatural sanctions against it?

First, I’d like to point out that any sex can cause heartbreak and mysterious genital burning. Aren’t many people heartbroken with the end of a serious relationship, in no small part because they were having sex? And a sexually transmitted infection can happen through sex, especially unprotected sex, with someone who is already infected, no matter how serious the relationship. Someone could have “casual” sex with a hundred people, and if none of them are infected, that person will not get infected.

But the other thing I wanted to get to was that, no, we should not impose unnatural sanctions against relationships. It is natural for a gay man to be attracted to, and love, other men. It is natural for a polyamorous person to love more than one person. This is why we should not use laws to reserve sex or marriage for only two people, or only heterosexuals couples.

Read more »

Posted in: love,polyamory,science

Updates on Two Criminal Cases

A sentence has been issued in this absurd prosecution of two adults in Zimbabwe for loving each other and (gasp!) being cousins! Here's a report from radiovop.com...

Two members of the Feremenga family from Dzivarasekwa Extension in Harare, whose incestuous relationship resulted in two pregnancies, were yesterday convicted and ordered to perform 630 hours of community service at different institutions in the suburb.

Robson (21) and Ashley Feremenga (19), whose fathers are blood brothers, pleaded guilty to incest charges when they appeared before Harare regional magistrate Adonia Masawi and were slapped with a 36-month prison term each.

But Masawi later suspended 18 months of their sentence on condition of good behaviour and again suspended the remainder on condition each of them performs 630 hours of community service.

Got that? If you break up your family, you can stay out of prison. Of course, the bigots in the neighborhood are going to have a field day being sadistic towards you anyway, and we won't stop that. Because, you know, you shouldn't be allowed to love each other.

The court was nonetheless, left in stitches when the two relatives insisted they wanted to stay together as a couple despite the implications of their unlawful relationship.

The cruelty is appalling. First cousins have been marrying for all of human history. Everyone involved in prosecuting these two should look into their heart, if they one, and clear it of this hatred.

The other update is about a case out of Nevada in which there was a sentencing a while back. I don't think the media ever specified the relationship, but my guess would be uncle-niece. This update comes from elkodaily.com reported by Dylan Woolf Harris.

Hughes isn’t specifically appealing his conviction, but instead the district court’s decision to allow prosecutors to use evidence gathered during a search of Hughes’ home. Leading up to trial, the defense filed a motion to suppress on grounds that a search warrant request wasn’t supported by probable cause, but District Judge Nancy Porter held that the warrant was supported and the prosecutor’s evidence was permissible.

The investigation and eventual search of Hughes’ home began in late 2008 after Kimberly Harphant, an acquaintance of Hughes, met with sheriff’s detective Kevin McKinney. She brought with her an unsigned, handwritten letter she said she took from Hughes’ home one day, as well as a prepared document of cut-and-pasted emails between Hughes and the victim.

Harphant had helped Hughes set up a business email account to which she remembered the password, and had lent him a phone. She was retrieving the phone when she found the letter, according to court documents.

The letter appeared to indicate romantic love between two people, but “in addition to a complete lack of attribution, it contains no references to a past or existing sexual relationship,” the brief states. Similarly, the emails’ authors were unverified and didn’t mention sex.

The appeal brief asserts McKinney made little attempt to corroborate or verify the items Harphant presented to him.

Interesting.

Read more »

Posted in: Africa,breaking up homes,consanguineous,cousins,incest,lack of equality harms,love,Nevada,prosecution,siblings,Zimbabwe