Another Introductory Article on Polyamory

Julie Eng talks with Dan Davidson and some poly people in California, and tries to explain all of the standard introductory information about polyamory that people who still haven’t heard the term might want to know.

In recent years these numbers have received significant media attention — notably, Newsweek described polyamory as “the next sexual revolution.” Poly books such as “The Ethical Slut,” by Dossie Easton and Catherine A. Liszt, have achieved mainstream success, bringing new faces to poly community groups in large cities throughout the country. As polls show younger generations growing more accepting of all lifestyles and non-hetero-normative relationships are in and out of federal courtrooms, polyamory is becoming more high-profile.

It’s going to get bigger. A lot bigger.

The poly community has received some negative attention. Conservative groups like Focus on the Family have publicly denounced polyamory as immoral, and a threat to the current federal marriage laws. A pamphlet released by the Family Research Council describes a polyamorous home as “a frat house with revolving doors.”

Most polyamorous situations are much more serious than that, with many people practicing long-term polifidelity. But wether someone practices polyfidelity with two spouses for life, or they are simply nonmonogamous (which includes much more than polyamory) and do have a revolving door of sexual partners, it is nobody else’s business and it shouldn’t be illegal.

Publications on the Family Research Council website warn that “the rising polyamorous culture is out to get your children.”

Most poly people, if they want children, have made or will be making their own, thank you. There are poly people who will be happy to adopt children who were made by those “monogamous” people who can’t care for them.

Stigmas like this drive many poly people to keep their relationships relatively private.

Stigmas like that shouldn’t be around anymore. Let consenting adults have their own love and marital lives without trying to tell them what to do and what not to do.

The roots of polyamory, originally referred to as “responsible” or “ethical” non-monogamy, can be traced back to the 19th century.

It can probably be traced back further than monogamy.

It’s a long article. It might be helpful to send to someone who wants to know more about polyamory. And the more people who do know, the better, because it will most us that much faster towards the polygamous freedom to marry.

Valentines’s Day

Monday is Valentine’s Day. This weekend and Monday, 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 sex, love, 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. In most of the world, a man can’t marry both the women he loves, despite both women being in favor of such a marriage. Hopefully, that will change in Canada soon, and many other places after that. People like Liz and Ryan can find very few countries that would recognize their marriage, 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.

Half Siblings Can Marry in Sweden

emmashore asked, “I've heard that half siblings are allowed to marry in sweden, provided they receive 'special approval'. Is this true???”

According to this map, yes. This law is better than in most places, but any consenting adult should be able to marry any other consenting adult and special approval should not be needed, unless everyone who gets married has to get special approval.

Swinglish...

Both [cousins, half siblings] are just weird....I should think any right minded person would agree.

emmashore…

LOL I totally agree, wasn't asking for personal reasons.. was asking out of disgust and shock.

Isn’t that cute? They can be friends and hate other people together.

Carl T …

I also note that the ban on sex/marriage between close relatives appears to mostly be based on the notion that it's disgusting. If it were based on the risk of birth defects, I would also expect there to be a blanket ban on sex for those with serious heritable diseases and old but pre-menopause women, or a ban on reproduction but not on sex and marriage, or at the very least the laws would be based on biological and not legal relatedness (though since 2004 there is a possibility for adopted whole siblings to be allowed to marry, with no mention of whether they could then legally have sex).

Correction to the above: I found a comment to the relevant law, which clarifies that only biological whole siblings can be guilty of "samlag med syskon" (intercourse with sibling).

He makes a point. We don’t have equality under the law if a reason used to deny marriage equality isn’t applied to other cases to also deny freedoms.

Jamtjim…

So, my thought is this: If we accept in a modern liberal society that two consenting adults can do whatever they want sexually so long as it doesn't hurt any third party, then is it right to have a law which prohibits genetic siblings from having sex with each other?

No, it isn’t.

Now I realise that peoples first thought may be of disgust, personally I find the notion of inter-sibling sex morally and ethically wrong, but then law should not be based on subjective morality. Some people regard homosexual acts as wrong morally, but yet society has learned to accept this as like I said before, if it is consensual, and nobody gets hurt then this is accepted. Similarly, certain people believe that all sex outside of marriage is ethically wrong. Again modern societies to do not uphold laws which forbid this either.

Right. Disapprove all you want, but don’t force your disapproval on the lives of others.

CathySky…

I think people who do this suffer from low self esteem or some other mental health issue.

And she bases this on…? The people I know are healthy, happy, well-adjusted people.

Shibumi…

Although incest is a universal taboo, this taboo is universally violated.

Yes. Nobody does it. Except that it happens all over the world. Let’s drop the charade.

As for the legal aspects, I think that there are already laws on the books that deal with the control, domination and abuse aspects often involved in incest cases. These should be enforced. If there is a victim, the victim should be protected and defended by society and the victimizer should be stopped and punished. As for the (I believe) much rarer cases where two completely consenting and able-minded adults who are closely related, wish to behave as a couple, I don't think a law is needed.

Not just couples.

If societal pressure does not prove to be enough to keep them apart, they are not actually harming anyone and the government/state/law representing "we the people" should not enter their bedroom. We can still think it is wrong and pass personal judgment on them and frown and shun them… within the limits of the law of course… but not everything most of us agree is "wrong" should be legislated.

Thank you!

Jamtjim…

Is it fair to discriminate against people in a non-abusive relationship simply because there are a larger number of abusive ones? It it fair to deny these people the right to engage in a totally consensual relationship solely because of the actions of other people?

No!

Is this not against the principles of a free liberal society?

Yes, it is.

Time and time again, we see that arguments against this freedom to marry are nothing more than personal distaste, not reasoned policy.

Mackenzie Phillips Book Update

Mackenzie Phillips has a paperback edition of her book hitting stores soon, with updates, including her family’s reaction to her writing and speaking of having a sexual relationship with her father.

It would be interesting for an objective party to go through how the delivery of her message has changed in response to media reaction.

I’m not privy to the specific dynamics of her relationship with her father, but in general, a woman should be able to write and talk about having a consensual sexual relationship with her father (or mother, sister, brother, etc.) without being trashed or told she’s mistaken about her consent or feelings about it, and without the deceased person being trashed.

Honesty Draws a Nonmonogamist to Polyamory

This blogger writes about discovering she is polyamorous.

But another part of it was knowing that deep down, I probably would never be totally satisfied with just one person. I am capable of having an intimate connection with one person--a relationship--but I also was able to recognize that I have needs that can't be met by one person because well, they are just one person. And quite simply that people in general are pretty awesome and sometimes you just want to spend time with them--not necessarily in a sexual manner. I was raised to believe that monogamy was the way of life for all humans and that anyone who strayed outside of that was quite simply a cheater and the scum of the earth.

More people would be polyamorous and happy if they hadn’t been told all of their lives that monogamy was the only acceptable way.

Right around Thanksgiving, I started doing some exploring on open relationships and polyamory. It was something that always fascinated me--mainly because I really envied the security that these women felt. They are so secure in their relationship with their primary partner that the actions that they both have outside of each other doesn't take away from their primary relationship--and if anything, it makes is stronger. The open and honest forum that is provided was something that I craved. And the trust. But more than anything, the security. I couldn't imagine a world where I was so secure in myself.

If she finds what she’s looking for, then good for her.

A Supporter of Limited Polygyny

This writer appears to equate polygamy with polygyny.

Feminists stand strongly against it, supported by issues on gender equality, human rights and many more.

Some feminists support the freedom to polygamous marriage. Polygamy is more than patriarchal polygyny. There’s also group marriage (including same-sex) and polyandry. Furthermore, it is entirely possible for strong women to choose to share a husband, and thus choose polygyny. Some feminists rightly see denial of this freedom to marry as restricting a woman’s right to choose her marriage partners.

My concern is over the fact that in Islam a man can have more than one wife (sister wives) up to four wives on condition that he can treat his wives wisely.

Why is this concerning?

If God permits conditionally (in Islam), why do humans (just small creatures of God) try to stand against polygamy?

There are many Muslims in the world, but the majority of people in the world are not Muslims. Legally, full marriage equality should allow any adult their right to marry any consenting adult(s) they choose. Regardless of religion. Some people oppose adding any new freedom to marry into law because they want to control the lives of others. There are also some people who would support increasing the freedom to marry but would oppose full marriage equality; they have a lack of solidarity. For example, there are Muslims who would want the law to allow a man to have four wives, but would oppose allowing a man to have more than four, or oppose letting a man marry another man. With full marriage equality, a Muslim man (or any man) could marry four consenting women, but his neighbor would have also have the freedon to marry two men.

Bountiful Youth Provided Good Education

Contrary to antiequality-based attacks on Bountiful that are getting much press due to the Canadian poly trial, it turns out the education is good there.

But the bigots can’t handle the truth, so they attack the report.

The NDP were quick to seize on the Bountiful result to argue that the ratings, which have long been controversial, are not useful.

``Bountiful Elementary (Secondary) School sharing the top spot in this year's report - a finding that is at odds with information that has recently been provided in the (Supreme Court) - illustrates the problems with the methodology the Institute uses, and with the overall report,'' said a statement from NDP leadership candidate Adrian Dix.

Not true…

Peter Cowley of the Fraser Institute said the report's rankings are based only on the results of children taking the tests.

``This is a reasonable test of the curriculum expectations that the ministry set for these three subject areas in these two grades. You get the measure and let the chips fall where they may,'' said Cowley.

Cowley said Bountiful's position at the elementary grade was based on its academic performance, and not on its popularity.

This was also covered here.

Defending Stephanie Seymour

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.

New Hampshire Needs to Move Forward, Not Backward

Christine Montgomery of Chesterfield expressed support for the freedom to same-sex marriage in New Hampshire.

Equality matters to me - and, specifically, the marriage equality recently enacted in New Hampshire.

It’s not quite full marriage equality yet. Not until all adults can marry the consenting adult(s) of their choice, regardless of relation.

I cannot be silent as I read of the current GOP legislators’ plan to repeal the marriage rights of our gay and lesbian citizens.

Good. We need to go forward to full marriage equality, not take a step back to take away a freedom to marry.

I believe that, regardless of sexual orientation, most couples have similar values around marriage. In fact, let’s focus on similarities rather than differences.

Not just couples, either.

Generally, we marry a person for whom we share deep affection/love. We marry the person we want to build and share a life with. We marry because we want our relationship recognized as a legitimate entity by all.

Marriage is how we define the depth of our relationship. Legally, marriage provides protection and financial benefits for couples and families.

Married couples create homes in their community, nurture friendships within their communities, provide stability within their community and beyond. Many married couples provide the foundation for families.

Not just couples, either. Poly families do, too. Let’s support full marriage equality for all. Writing a letter to the editor is one way.

Discredited, Invalid Arguments Against Full Marriage Equality

I have a added a page with the common arguments against marriage equality, and my responses. Almost always, bigots trying to justify their prejudice in denying full marriage equality use these arguments that have already been discredited, invalidated, and do not stand up in court.

Please feel free to cite this page and the argument number when dealing with those who want to deny full marriage equality. I plan to do that to save myself a lot of time.

If I have missed something, please tell me.

A Good Question

Stefan1991 asked “Why is Incest illegal in the UK?” He cites a mother and father of four children. This couple story of this is well known to people who follow news about consanguineous sex, as they were both jailed for loving each other as they are brother and sister.

Who has the right to say that a consensual relationship is wrong?

Glen_Nichols gave the standard, ignorant reply…

The kids will be mutants.

As has been pointed out many times before, most sex does not result in births, most children born to consanguineous parents are healthy, and, finally, we do not deny people their reproductive rights based on the likelihood of their offspring having birth defects or inherited diseases.

Lewroll had a strong reaction, but was unable to provide a logical argument to keep consanguineous sex criminalized…

Ok, thats it, I've had enough. This has gone too far!!

This attitude of let two consenting adults do whatever they want is fine...up to a point.

Incest is sick, and if it ever becomes legal....just the thought of it makes me want to be sick.

Then don’t do it. Don’t want such a relationship? Don’t have one.

How would you feel if your brother and sister came home one day and told you they had been having sex?

I’m happy for any consenting adults who have found love, or at least a good time, with each other, as long as they aren’t violating existing vows to another.

Stefan1991 returned to the discussion to expose what a weak argument Lewroll was using…

What would you do if your mum came home one day and said she had raunchy sex with your dad. Oh, would you feel sick then too? Better ban parental sex as well.

Exactly. Just because someone is turned off or disgusted does not mean everyone else should have to refrain.

The discussion goes on for many more messages.

What if you couldn't marry the person you love? Think about that.

Freedom to Marry Regardless of Religion

Andrea Johnson cautiously supports the polygamous freedom to marry.

A court in Canada is set to make a decision on whether to declare the laws against polygamy unconstitutional in that country. I think it might be a good idea here too, though it would probably be a tax code and legal nightmare.

It doesn’t have to be.

She then goes into Carolyn Jessop’s book and recent news about some FLDS communities.

Despite her own negative experiences, she favors decriminalizing polygamy because she thinks it will offer women in these situations more legal protection and perhaps prevent some of the all-too-common abuses, such as underage marriages. I think she has a good point there.

So do I.

She then mentions Muslim polygyny, and how homes are broken up when not all of the wives and children are allowed to immigrate with the husband.

I'm not sure how practical it would be to legalize polygamy, but I think an argument could be made that refusal to recognize it or prosecuting people for practicing it is a violation of freedom of religion.

It’s also a violation of the freedom of association and equal treatment. People can want a polygamous marriage without a religious basis, and they should be allowed that. It doesn’t matter if they are basing it on a religion, or what religion, or not. It doesn’t matter if they are the same race or not, the same generation or not, if they are closely related or not, if they are the same gender or not, or there are two, three, four, or more of them. Let them have the freedom to marry. Let’s have full marriage equality.

Elmwood commented…

I have done a little reading about Polygamy and one question I have is how could one man with 20 wives and over 110 children support them?

There’s nothing stopping any man from impregnating 20 consenting women right now. There are many men who have impregnated four or more women in a short time span. We pay some of these men large sums to play in professional sports, for example, but even if a man is unable to pay all of his child support, he is not prevented from impregnating more women. Most people know a woman who has children by three or more men. With marriage equality, at least we’d have more children will be growing with married parents.

What Is a Taboo?

Mary Lupin writes…

Is that what taboo is then? A way of protecting an untenable, but dearly held, belief from examination? An interesting thought when one considers taboo subjects like incest. When I was an undergraduate anthropologist I remember thinking about the universal incest taboo and realizing that meant that it was also universal behaviour. The question is do we make it taboo to stop it or to hide it?

The incest taboo is part of an overall attempt to control the sexuality of the masses. Whether we’re talking consanguineous sex, polyamory, same-sex reationships, interracial relationships, intergender relationships (between adults), we’re dealing with something that the sex police have tried to discourage as a way to exert control over others. Intergender relationships have been strictly controlled so that only older male-younger female relationships have been permissible, for example; otherwise, they have to be the same generation.

Prohibitions drive the relationships underground and cause many problems. This should no longer be allowed. We should talk about and respect the freedom of others to share love, sex, and marriage the way they want.

If We Could Talk to the Animals

Jenny Block, who has written about open marriage, wrote that there are some interesting comparisons between humans and other animals when it comes to sexuality. How often have we heard that some relationship isn’t “natural?”

As she says, “Just because animals do certain things doesn’t prove that we necessarily do them too.” But sometimes humans can be compared to other animals, and the comparisons have weight. We might be able to get some good ideas from them.

She points out that animals flirt, they masturbate, they watch other animals express their sexuality, even through video.

They exhibit habits other than monogamy. They are polygamous and polygynous. And they are social monogamists as well as serial monogamists, even swans. Bonobos, for example, have multiple sexual partners at any given time in their life. And some species even engage in group sex. When red-sided garter snakes mate, the female is made the center of what is called a mating ball, where 100 males all attempt to mate with the female at the same time.

People exhibit habits other than monogamy. Although not always socially accepted, people partner in a variety of ways. Many of those ways have proved to be perfectly healthy.

Also,

They are homosexual as well as heterosexual. Marine birds, mammals, monkeys, great apes, dolphins, penguins, cattle, bonobos and rams are just a few of the many animal species in which scientists have observed homosexual behavior.

Humans are homosexual as well as heterosexual, obviously. And each is perfectly normal and absolutely biological. Once again, the only issue in human society is our lack of acceptance of both orientations.

She goes on to note that some animals have sex for pleasure, some will seek out additional sex partners if the current one is not interested in another session at that time, some over-indulge, and there are female initiators. And I’ll add that anyone who has had closely related hamsters can verify that some animals engage in consanguineous sex.

Consenting adults should have their rights to any of these things, without the law interfering.

Columnist Still Clings to Bigotry

Mindelle Jacobs at the Edmonton Sun looks at a polyamorous “V.”

Marilyn, a stay-at-home mother and polygamist has a dilemma. Who to sleep with on Valentine’s Day? Her husband or her boyfriend?

If she was in a triangle that engaged in threesomes instead of a V, the question wouldn’t be there.

Marilyn e-mailed me after reading a recent column I wrote in which I criticized a law professor for urging that polygamy be decriminalized.

Good for her.

“As a mother and wife, I firmly believe in the protection of women and children,” she wrote. “As an individual who identifies as polyamorous … and is involved in a consensual relationship with not only my spouse but also with another man, I strongly disagree with (the ban on polygamy).”

Thank you.

She wondered if I’d like to chat. Well, sure. After all, you don’t (knowingly) meet polygamists every day.

Don’t be so sure. Poly people are your neighbors, your coworkers, and people you pass by every day.

She compares her awakening polyamorous sensibility to someone realizing he or she is gay. “It was a very interesting process coming out to myself,” she says. “I realized something very deep about myself — that this kind of relationship makes sense to me. This is who I am.”

She should have that freedom.

All in their mid-40s, they’d be unremarkable in a crowd. No Playboy Mansion looks. Just middle-aged people with a bizarre lifestyle.

Love is not bizarre. It is strange that some people will call this relationship bizarre, but they wouldn't say the same thing if this woman was cheating on her husband, having a secret affair.

Inexplicably, Jacobs wraps up the column this way…

Sorry, Marilyn. While I can’t imagine the police busting up your polygamous party, I don’t want Canada to be a beacon for the cause. Overall, polygamy causes immense harm to women. Why encourage it?

No proof is given, because there isn’t any that will back up such prejudice. What harm is Marilyn suffering? Why deny freedom and equality to consenting adults?

Barbara Anne Smith is confused as shown in this comment…

IMO Marilyn is lucky, but it isn't a true polygamous relationship. If it was, she may be the main wife, but she would also have several sister wives and be at the beck and call of her so-called husband.

Polygamy is any marriage with more than two spouses. Smith is thinking of a certain form of polygyny, which is a subset of polygamy. If Marilyn considers both men her husbands, then she is in a polyandrous form of polygamy. Either way, it is a polyamorous relationship.

You Don’t Have to Like It

Shu Fen references a case in Singapore I covered here.

CURRENT TOPICS OF CONCERN: ethics (as usual)...INCEST (I mean, other than being unimaginably disgusting and the child produced having higher risk of genetic diseases...what is so explicably wrong about it if it is mutually consensual?)...wait for me to write a thesis on it or something lol. (for the article that piqued my interest:

It may be disgusting to Shu Fen, but there are many people who have everything ranging from recreational fun to lifelong, loving spousal relationships that are with (a) close relative(s). But at least this blogger questions why someone would consider such relationships wrong. You don’t have to like the idea of interracial, same-sex, polyamorous, or consanguineous sex to recognize that it should be up to consenting adults to decide if those relationships are best for them or not.

More Allies, But Some Myths Persist

On Yahoo Answers, Kati touches on solidarity issues, having asked, “Why are some people who are for homosexual relationships against incestuous relationships?”

Only some people who are “for” homosexual relationships are against consanguineous sexual (incestuous) relationships. Other people recognize that neither homosexual nor consanguineous relationships should be illegal, nor should marriage equality be denied based on either factor. Whether a relationship is same-sex or heterosexual is a different category than whether a relationship is consanguineous or not. That is why some people who may support one may not support the other; they have prejudices against one but not the other. Lately, I’ve encountered people who strongly reject the freedom to polygamy, but are engaged in consanguineous sex. Different categories.

if two people love each other it shouldn't matter, right?

They don’t even need to love each other.

The asker makes it clear this is about consenting adults…

pedophilia has nothing to do with my question. pedophilia can't be compared with homosexual or incestuous relationships because it involves children that can't consent to sexual acts. while too homosexual adults and incestuous adults can consent. So im comparing the two.

There were a lot of allies speaking up. I quote from a few below.

SnuggleBum replied…

Honestly, if the two people in the incestuous relationship are both consenting adults, I don't really care.

Thank you!

Robted…

If it's two adults, I actually couldn't care less.

Thank you!

Thomas Jefferson…

If it's two consenting adults, then its none of my business or your business. Incest, like homosexuality, has been prevalent throughout history in all societies. I am not homosexual or incestuous, but who am I to say what is wrong?

Thank you!

Dianna…

Well, personally I feel both of them are wrong, but to answer your question an incestuous relationship is very wrong because people should not have sexual relations with family members.

Why not?

This is not the natural order of things because if it was then there wouldn't be a high rate of birth defects in children born in incestuous relationships.

Most sex doesn’t lead to births. Two, three, or four brothers could have sex for a lifetime and will never have any children. The same may also happen with a brother and a sister. Also, most children born to close relatives are healthy. We don’t bar other people with a higher-than-average risk from having children. And yet, this “reason” for denying this freedom to marry was cited by several people.

Jimmy Lee…

You've got a point. This is why I'm not against incest, though I personally find that the idea makes me shudder a bit. I don't have anything against people whose attracted to a relative of theirs. You are right, as long as the love is legitimate it shouldn't matter what these two people are. Whether it be heterosexuals, homosexuals, interracial couples, and even relatives. I'm in no position to judge.

Thank you!

Aoh Oah…

i think that as long as both people are consenting, i think it should be fine.

Thank you!

Duane…

Well, my opinion may have some holes in it. But what I think is that you are "born" into homosexuality then you can't control a gender you like. But you don't come out liking your cousin/brother/sister in that way, the relationship must be built.

There are people in consanguineous relationships who have what they consider an irresistible draw to each other. But either, this does not explain why there are laws against it. Actually, we don't tend to pass laws against things nobody wants to do. Some people enjoy these relationships, to the point of being prosecuted.

But I'm sure if the other person looked hard enough, they'd soon realize there are other people out there than just your cousin/brother/sister...

If someone in an interracial relationship looked hard enough, they could find someone to love who is of their own race. This does not justify keeping them from the person they want.

PurplePanda…

I am pro-gay but I just can't support incest. Homosexuals and incestuous relationships are two different things.

Yes, they are. So are interracial relationships and same-sex relationships. But they all involve consenting adults. Why should consenting adults be denied equality?

You should NOT being having sex with a family member.

Why not? PurplePanda doesn’t say why.

Stephen…

Well I am a part of the lgbt community and I think of myself as open minded. But incest is really gross why would anyone sleep with a relative I'm repulsed by my family

Some people are repulsed by the thought of two men having sex and can’t understand wanting to have gay sex. But so what? That shouldn’t deny anyone their rights to love, sex, and marriage. Thankfully, as we can see, more and more people recognize this.

Pretending at Monogamy

Blogger hambydammit says, "So We Aren’t Monogamous… What Are We?"

From the archaeological, anthropological, sociological, biological, and anatomical records, we get a clear picture of what humans do. They have sex with multiple partners.

Most do, yes.

But this observation doesn’t help us very much in our day to day life. Particularly in America, we don’t have much choice but to toe the party line and at least pretend towards some form of monogamy, even if it’s serial.

We're working to change that.

The blogger poses some questions, including...

If we are designed to bond long-term with one partner (or perhaps two), why does our biology most closely resemble bonobos, who do not bond this way?

If we are designed for sexual exclusivity, why are human vaginas designed specifically for intense sperm competition? (Sperm competition happens when sperm from multiple males is in the vagina at the same time.)

Why do so many existing hunter-gatherer societies practice multi-male/multi-female mating?

Prompting this...

Clearly, our social insistence on strict monogamy is largely attributable to the imposition of modern monotheism on the Western world, and as I’ve detailed in THIS ARTICLE, the motivations were hardly altruistic.

Whatever the source of the demand for monogamy, there's no need to require people to be monogamous, including in marriage law. Let people decide for themselves.

The blog entry goes on to discuss "primitive cultures," sperm competition, and accumulation, among other things before wrapping up that entry...

In any case, even if we decide that monogamy is still our goal, it’s helpful to understand that we are not especially built for it, and it’s as much about ownership as anything else. Knowing that non-ownership is an option is liberating in and of itself, and perhaps it will open new doors for people who feel like they just “aren’t ready for commitment” at this time. Maybe it could even help redefine what it means to have a “friend with benefits.”

There are, of course, many forms of nonmonogamy that involve commitment.

The next entry is "If We’re Not Monogamous, then Why Are We Monogamous?"

To begin with, let me offer a caveat. Whatever else we might be, we humans are very flexible in our mating. Even today, we see everything from communal mate swapping to highly stratified polygamy to near monogamy. And if there is still a question of whether we are most naturally drawn to monogamous long term pair bonds or not, it’s clear that we are capable of long term monogamy. But it is a very difficult strategy to follow, and seems counter-intuitive on several levels.

It sure does.

This entry goes on to talk reproduction, "bastards," and sperm competition (again).

Finally, there's the third entry that asks, "Can Non-Monogamy Work Today?"

The blogger notes that in reality, we already practice nonmonogamy.

Like it or not, strict exclusive monogamy exists primarily in the wishes and hopes of the highly religious and doggedly old-fashioned. (Not that it was any different in the real good old days…) We practice a coy game of
wink-wink-nudge-nudge when it comes to exclusivity. Estimates range as high as
40% for extra-pair coupling in some populations. In other words, we say we’re
going to be exclusive, and then we practice non-monogamy on the sly.

Furthermore, a large percentage of young people are part of the “hookup culture,” in which some sort of sexual contact is a precursor to a possible relationship. They have friends with benefits, booty-call buddies, pretend boyfriends/girlfriends, and at least a dozen other kinds of short-to-medium term non-committed partnerships. It’s not uncommon for a young person to have uncommitted sexual contact with a half-dozen or more partners before finding someone to commit to exclusively. At nearly all ages, we practice serial monogamy. A significant percentage of young people have relationships that last less than one year. Most retirement age people have had at least two marriages,
and several mid-to-long term relationships in between.

Add to this the growing number of committed couples who are participating in
occasional consentual non-monogamy, such as sex clubs, threesomes, sharing
prostitutes in Vegas, making out with the best friend, etc, and we realize that
we are already non-monogamous. We just make a big show of telling everybody we
aren’t.

That sounds awfully familiar.

The blogger looks at various reasons people profess or pretend to try to be monogamous, then concludes...

We have to admit that each aspect of a relationship is possible without sexual exclusivity. Granted, there are potential pitfalls and problems with each category, but that’s not news. There are problems with all of them in exclusive relationships, too.

There is much more to each of the three entries, and they are worth a read.

Be Back Soon

So much to discuss, not enough time. Maybe I'll get to blog a bit over the weekend, but so far, it isn't looking like I'll have a lot of time. Thanks for checking out this blog. Read through the archives. There's a lot there.

A Mormon Ally

Julia, a Mormon, gives a “testimony” that includes...

I believe that polygyny, polyandry, and gay/lesbian marriages should be legal. I don't believe it is the government should tell me who to love.

Thank you, Julia. There are probably many more members of your church who believe the same thing, but just haven’t spoken up in public about it. The silence has meant people assume they support Prop H8.

About her choice of schools…

This choice kills me when I hear people use the word gay as a synonym for stupid.

Words do matter. There are stupid gays, but there are brilliant gays, too. Gays are people. “Gay” shouldn’t be used for “stupid,” or as an insult. People are slurred simply because of who they love. That’s wrong and everyone needs to reject that hateful attitude. Thanks, Julia.

Raybeard Expresses Solidarity

With the freedom to same-sex marriage becoming more established around the world, Raybeard expresses solidarity for poly and consanguineous marriages, since he recognizes the rights of consenting adults.

If two or more adult women wish to marry one man, or two or more men wish to marry one woman, or two or more men wish to marry each other, or several women equally wish to marry - why on earth not?

Good question. He looked at one of the common excuses to deny this freedom to marry.

Some would doubtlessly argue that such marriages would constitute a 'legal minefield'. That may or may not be so, but it's hardly a reason for criminalising them. Since when did legal expediency determine one's emotions? If several adults of sound mind wish to enter such a relationship I think it's arrogant for anyone else to tell them that they mustn't.

The “legal minefield’ argument doesn’t hold up. Simply require that, along with the marriage license, a pre-nuptial agreement be filed. It could be a simple form attached to the marriage license that simply has all spouses indicating their agreement that the marriage will be “all-with-all” community property style, or it can get more customized from their to establish dyadic networks with specific designations as to who will get what should the marriage end. With dyaditic network, “next of kin” is obvious. It could be indicated for each spouse with the “all-with-all” version.

We have copy machines that make it really easy to duplicate legal documents to accommodate additional spouses.

When it comes to consanguineous love and sex, he notes the often-cited inbreeding issue, which has been overblown.

But if the m/f couple of brother/sister, father/daughter, mother/son, really do not wish to have a child, then there are all the options open to them as there is to any other couple not wishing to reproduce. As for relationships between closely related adult males or closely related adult females, I see no counter-arguments at all. Not a single one! Furthermore, in any such adult relationships, I do not see why they should be barred from marrying, should they wish.

As I and others have noted, most of the sex that goes on does not result of a birth, but even so, we do not deny people their reproductive rights based on an increase in the possibilities of birth defects or some other genetic problem.

It's a shame that words like 'incest' and 'adultery' can carry such a baggage of disapproval and prejudice, accrued over centuries of (religious) intolerance and bigotry, which are plainly unfair in contemporary enlightened times. Indeed, in both cases, it could be that acts within those particular definitions may be more honest and loving than any act within a legally recognised marriage to which either or both parties may belong. If only they could be called by different names.

I prefer referring to consensual incest as “consanguineous sex” because of the baggage. We need to make a clear distinction between abuse/assault of minors by adults and loving or playful consensual sex between adults. I also think the term “adultery” shouldn’t apply to sex with someone else while legally married to another, as long as the legal spouse has agreed to this. Going against existing vows is “cheating,” and that’s the term I prefer.

Thanks to Raybeard for his solidarity!

Solidarity and This Blog

I explain on this page why solidarity is important. Go read that page if you haven’t already.

I encounter a lack of solidarity sometimes in regard to this very blog. For example, I link to a forum called, descriptively enough, “Porn Free Incest.” It is where some people get together and discuss their involvement or interest in consensual consanguineous sex without having to wade through whatever is determined to be porn. Before I go further, I want to make it clear that I’m not angry with anyone there. I’m just a little disappointed in how things have been playing out.

I have posted there in recent months, and when I first posted, I had a signature that included a link to this blog. I figured people would be interested in knowing about a blog that was advocating their right to not be made criminals because of their love lives. People could either click on the link in my signature or not. But the link was removed, with the explanation that I link on this blog to sites that contain pornographic content (forums where people may post pictures and videos in addition to the discussion), as well a site that has one or more people with which at least one person at Porn Free Incest has some sort of personal issue. (I was unaware of this personal issue.)

I was also invited to write about polyamory, as the forum topics are wide-ranging. So I did, and that was met with some less than supportive response.

But I still check in there and write when I feel I have something relevant to contribute.

Recently, “Dr_Z” joined the site, and made the “mistake” of linking to this blog…

I've been perusing a couple of websites that I find particularly useful with interesting news and incisive commentary about incest (and NO PORN).

http://incestnews.blogspot.com
Incest News - timely and relevant news articles on incest issues, often with useful commentary...

“Justme” edited Dr_Z’s message to strike the second link, which was apparently to this blog…

Edit: the second link really didn't deal with incest, so it was not relevant.

“Beepy” replied…

As for the "full marriage equality" one, I wouldn't visit it. I may be involved in incest, but putting it on the same podium as zoo behavior like Polygyny isn't right.

Of course, there are also polygynists who don’t want to be “on the same podium” as those who engage in incest. It's like looking back sixty years ago and watching African Americans not wanting to be associated with Latino Americans as both groups struggled for civil rights in a "whites only" society.

Site administrator “Mytoes” added…

the second link had no place here.

No place? A blog that discusses consensual incest has no place being linked to in a forum that discusses… consensual incest?

Dr_Z was obviously not expecting this reaction. He added…

In regard to FME (and in defense of my earlier effort to recommend it as a useful resource), I don't have any particular "dog in the hunt" in regard to that blog - I don't know who publishes it, I've never even posted a comment to it... BUT I far as I'm concerned it's full of news and commentary that definitely has relevance to incest issues, particularly advocating the legal right to consensual incest. And it's definitely NOT "pornographic" - in fact, I can't recall a single photo I've ever seen on it. Furthermore, the FME blog has been waging one of the most intrepid, determined, consistent, and cogently presented campaigns for legal rights, including marriage, of incestuous partners of any website or organization I know of.

Thanks, Dr_Z. I appreciate the compliments and the (attempted) link.

Beepy added…

The fact is, dear Dr. Z, that incest should not be "lumped together" with these activities.

Incest must be advocated on it's own terms and merits. Public opinion about it isn't going to change any time soon, and it will certainly be harmed if it is "lumped together" with behavior that is extremely unsavory, such as polygamy.

Again, there are polygamists who would say the very same thing about the consanguineous sex being discussed in that forum.

Take, for example, you have a country.
In this country, gay people aren't allowed to marry.
There then starts a movement in this country.
In this movement, it says "We lobby for the rights of gays, pedophiles and practitioners of beastiality to be allowed to marry"

There is a clear and obvious distinction between advocating for the rights of consenting adults to love, sex, and marriage and advocating for pedophilia and beastiality. Yes, as I have detailed elsewhere on this blog, sexual orientation as in heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual is a different category than monogamous/polygamous and both of those are different categories than "exogamous, endogamous, or consanguineous," but all of these categories deal with consenting adults. They are all categories involving consenting adults who are being told by powerful forces that they can't love the person or person(s) they choose to love.

If you lump one thing in with a bunch of other, gross, unrelated things, it actually worsens the standings of that particular group.

The topics I deal with on this blog are not unrelated. They all have to do with struggling against the “sex police” and anti-equality forces that want to deny consenting adults their sexual and relationship rights. As far as “standing,” from what I can tell monitoring developments around the world and especially in the Anglosphere, it is those engaged in consanguineous sex and relationships who stand to gain the most from solidarity, as interracial, same-sex, and poly relationships are currently making more legal and social progress than consanguineous relationships. Thus, rejecting solidarity is done to their own detriment. Ironically, some of the people in that forum say they can't see the laws against consanguineous sex being repealed in their lifetime. They'll be right, if they reject solidarity.

Despite the indifference, or at worst, hostility, and the lack or reciprocal linking, I’d like to continue participating there and linking to that forum because I want this blog to provide the most help possible for people looking for information and encouragement. I also recognize that the forum administrators have every right to run their forum and limit the topics as they see fit. It is a service free to users, which is one of the reasons I link to it, and if someone does not like how it is run, they don't have to read it.

GeneticSexualAttaction.com is a site that is decidedly not a porn site and is another forum linked to by this blog. Regular participants there are not welcoming to discussing things like polyamory or consanguineous relationships in general, but that is because that forum is focused on a very specific subset of consanguineous relationships, especially in regards to helping people who are struggling because of a reunion with a relative. I completely respect that. I also like that they do allow me to link back to this blog in my signature. (Some of the people at GSA would be horrified by the discussions at Porn Free Incest. Probably more horrified than they would be at polygynists.)

Incestuous Lovers Forum has been very friendly. As the name implies, it is also a forum for people to discuss their participation or interest in consanguineous sex and relationships. They have allowed links to this blog and I have one in my signature there. I appreciate all of that. And yes, they also have sections in which people can post pornographic pictures and videos. Those sections are clearly labeled and if you don’t want to see anything like that, it is easy to avoid those sections.

I link to a couple of other forums that discuss consanguineous sex, but haven’t really had a lot of time to participate much in them, and yes, they have porn. For many decades now, there have been magazines with excellent, thought-provoking articles and essays on political and social topics, between nude pictorials or pictures of people having sex and stories of people having sex. Does that negate the value of the articles and essays? I say no.

Purely based on my own experience and observation, it appears to me that out of the three categories that have relationships and marriages struggling for legal equality in places like North America, the British Isles, and Australia (same-sex, polygamous, and consanguineous), polymorous people tend to be the most likely to express solidarity for the other two (as well as other forms of polygamy). I wonder why that is? Yes, there are LGBT people who are not poly and not into consanguineous sex who do express solidarity, and there are monogamous, heterosexual people in consanguineous relationships who express solidarity. But like I said, in my own experience, it looks like poly people are more likely to.

Anyway, be warned. Don’t assume mentions of this blog or the cause this blog supports will be welcomed in a forum that dicusses a subset of “illicit” sexuality or banned marriage. I do appreciate links and compliments, however.

Blog Update

I have made some changes. I have modified the text to the right under "About This Blog" as well as the "About This Blog" page.

This was mostly to reflect my support for people to not only be able to choose "all-with-all" marriages of three or more spouses (compatible with community property law), but also having the alternative option of "dyadic networks" marriages instead of "all-with-all." Having either option allows the greatest freedom to marry. The important thing is requiring the consent of all spouses.

I also added a disclaimer at the bottom of the template.

Polygamy More Ethical?

Don Lee makes a case that "Polygamy is more Ethical than Monogamy.”

He explains that professing monogamy isn’t always matched with actual monogamy.

In Western culture this is generally referred to as either "family friend" or "serial monogamy", neither of which are true monogamy. While being legally married, approximately 80% of all couples experience a sexual contact outside of marriage, and this remains the 2nd largest cause of classic divorce.

It may be cited as a cause in a certain number of divorces, but in a good chunk of those cases, it is not the cause. It may be a symptom. Yes, there are some divorces in which cheating (a physical, emotional, or financial relationship with someone in violation of the agreement with the spouse) is the cause, but I think it is clear to less biased observers that the cheating is a symptom of the real problem leading to the divorce.

The largest cause of divorce is loss of income, itself a revealing indicator of what Western Marriage is really all about.

Moral monogamy is "marriage until death" in most cultures. Legal monogamy is having only one legitimate spouse. These are in no way similar concepts, and in practice are quite diverse. Legally, you can be "monogamous" about nine or ten times, and some people have been married more than a dozen times.

In general (prostitution and consanguineous sex being generally illegal, and thus excluded) a married person having sex with someone other than his or her spouse is not criminalized in the US, though in a few states it can be subject to a lawsuit in civil court.

My point is not just that "serial monogamy" isn't really monogamy, and it isn't, but that many completely happy 30+ year marriages indulge in "private activities" which involve other people. Apart from the roughly 90 million Americans [almost one in three] who are members of sexually-themed clubs, or swingers, there is the harsh reality of cheating. 8.5 in 10 marriages experience infidelity according to most studies. The number ranges from 6 to 9 in 10 depending no the focal group, however the larger the group - the higher the ratio trends! Meaning, the likelihood that more people "cheat" is found to be more significant when studying larger groups.

As I have said before, actual monogamy is a minority behavior.

The chances of a successful marriage are less than 30% by most calculations, and those are odds I would not play even in Vegas.

This is where I think the writer gets it wrong, depending on how one defines “successful.” I suppose it is possible to say that if you exclude all marriages that end in divorce, separation, estrangement, or otherwise experience significant trouble, no matter how long they lasted or what was accomplished during the marriage, you could arrive at this figure. Mostly, though, when emotionally healthy and mature people marry with no prior marriages or other significant baggage (prior children, large debts, serious criminal record, Anita Bryant record collection), the odds of it lasting until death are high. But you do have these people, especially a lot of these types who tend to be against marriage equality, who marry and divorce three or four times, skewing the odds.

Marriage can help. Marriage can enhance a relationship. Many people who have experienced cohabitation without marriage and then with marriage report a difference. Full marriage equality will bring that to others, too, thus improving life for LGBT people and their family members, poly people, etc.

The essay goes on to talk about how being intolerant leads to divorce, and makes a case that men are generally on the short ends of the stick with current marriage laws in the West.

Essentially, we have a primitive legal structure based on outdated morality, which continues to exact life-destroying punishments upon those who have harmed nobody.

Boy, is that ever true!

He goes on to make a case that current laws and programs encourage women to raise children outside of legal marriages.

Now we get to the good part…

Ethically, poly marriages are far more stable, rarely dissolve, and provide enormously well for the children. Allowing people to license a group marriage would ensure long term stability, and make divorce very unlikely to cause emotional harm to the children even when it does occur.

The law should not be enjoined to prevent any class of person from getting married, such as gay people, or mixed race, or people from other nations.

If people want to get married, we should get out of their way and let them.

He writes a bit about the difficulties faced by same-sex couples, before returning to the poly topic.

Yet, there is no news flash about a poly family member killing her kids because she was depressed. The chances that any person in a poly marriage would be so isolated that they could develop a problem that dangerous, and that severe, are remote to the point of ridiculousness. In a poly marriage you're never alone, suffering apart from your mate, or without some conversation. Poly structures actually require communication as a part of existence.

You can't be poly without communicating. It does not work.

Therefore, Polygamous marriages are by definition far more stable and successful than monogamous marriages, because polygamy can't even be started without extensive communication, deal brokering, and long negotiations.

He knows what he’s talking about first hand…

I grew up on a farm with a family that practiced legal polygamy, and I was never abused until my mother pulled away from the family and converted to Christianity. Her abuse put me into a foster home, which cost me my birth family, and also all contact with the rest of that family. I never knew them again. I did not rediscover my roots until I was in the military and dated a young Jewish woman. There, again, I saw the warmth, unconditional love, and large prosperous families that I'd remembered.

This is probably one of the worst kept secrets about Western Judaism, and one that many would probably like me to shut the heck up about, but it's truth. Ethically, there's not only nothing wrong with it, Polygamy is in reality a multitude of times more healthy and successful than Monogamy. Despite being demonized in Christian media, persecuted by law thanks to other religions, and widely derided as abusive for more than fifty years, Polygamy continues unabated, safely, without harm to anyone.

After explaining that polygamy isn’t inherently harmful to women, he goes on to get more broadly philosophical.

With as much as I quoted, there’s a lot I didn’t. Go read the whole thing.

If it could be conclusively proven that polygamy was generally better than monogamy, I still wouldn’t discourage monogamy. That’s because I believe in full marriage equality, in which people make their own choices about their marriage, or whether or not they will marry at all, or whether they will stay married. It is too bad more people who tout monogamy can’t extend that kind of respect to poly people.

Tasty Apples and Rotten Oranges

MissSwatty was on Facebook and something caught her attention.

One of my FB friends posted why she hated incest sex and after reading her purge, I was prompted to congratulate her for her bravery.

This is not written very clearly. At first, I was wondering if she considered it bravery to express a hatred for incest. But it looks like she is saying her friend was revealing that she (the friend) was a victim of sexual abuse and MissSwatty thoight her friend brave for admitting that.

As we went back and forth, posting this, commenting about that, she shared with me the name of an individual in India who enjoys having sex with his mother. I immediately thought, 'what the hell?' but minimized my judgment--or at least tried--as cultural differences may allow for such acts (but even still, what the hell?). Definitely judging and thrown off guard as incest sex is a deplorable act and often requires years of therapy/talking/venting, etc to fully recover, I had to 'see' for myself. And so, I ventured to his wall in hopes of uncovering a sick joke but to be exact, it, indeed, is an act that him and his mother, unapologetically, engage in on a regular basis.

If they both enjoy it, what is the problem?

His wall was covered with posts such as 'My morning was good...... had a small ride with my mother in bed.....', 'While having a ride in morning, mom was in green night gown and blue panty with printed design flowers.....', and 'Today my mother was wearing cream color bra and brown panty. She removes them before sleeping.' Further deepening my disgust was the comments left by others that included, 'How old is ur mom dude? i think shes so delicious hot mom...', 'nice man....' lucky guy....', and 'what position did u use in morning? normal or backfire....?'

What is the problem? If she doesn’t like it, she doesn’t have to read it. The blogger then invites her readers to “blast” the man.

As a victim of incest, I am..... ENRAGED. CONFUSED. SPEECHLESS. DISGUSTED.

We’re talking about two different things. Apparently, MissSwatty was molested or raped, and that’s horrible. That’s not what the man in India is talking about. He has consensual sex with his mother. This is like a man getting angry about someone talking about gay sex because he was once assaulted by another man. We are comparing tasty apples to rotten oranges here.

She goes on to post correspondence between them where she asserts that what he’s doing is digusting. Judgmental, much?

Open Relationships and Love

Love Destiny asks...

What I want to know is can two people who are together and in an open relationship REALLY love each other? Are they as in love and comitted as monogomous people? Or are they just really close friends with benefits?

Most of the answers I saw were hateful or ignorant…

“no”

“there are all sorts of neurotic love relationships”

If people in a relationship decide that at least one of them is available for some additional form of relationship or sex with someone else because that is what best meets their needs why is that neurotic?

“i think when your truely in love, theres only one person you WANT to be with”

Monogamy isn’t what works for everybody. In fact, it appears to work for only a minority of people.

“No they are not. Someone who is not willing to give you the full attention you deserve can not possibly be truly in love. A person who needs the attention of others in a relationship is just plain too selfish to actually feel love for someone else.”

Where does this come from? It is arbitrary.

At least there was some more friendly responses.

some couples choose to have open relationships who have been together 20, 30 years etc… they cant bare to seperate but no longer have a healthy sex life with each other so they have an open relationship

That is one situation. There are also people who do have a healthy sex life with each other, and they decide to have an open relationship.

jryanwinterhaven wrote a long comment…

Contrary to the opinion of most of the commenter’s here who clearly have had little or no exposure to people who are in open relationships the answer is,Yes, people who are in open relationships can love each other and do. There are all kinds of open relationships out there that have different rules just as monogamous relationship have rules to guide them.

Thank you.

Of those in “Open Relationships,” those who describe themselves as Polyamorous, as I do, means that they have a emotionally loving relationship with more than one partner. A subset of this is Polyfidelity (as I consider myself) that has made a long-term loving commitment amongst their partners (something akin to a marriage – though not in the same manner as our culture would see it). Love and commitment is essential to this type of Open relationship”. With others it may or may not rise to the level of love, but there is a relationship that is somewhere on the scale between friends and loves.

It is always good to see people stand up to ingnorance and hate and give a thorough explanation. Not only do many of the people in open relationships love each other, in some cases the love some people have for each other is one of the reasons why their relationship is open in the first place. Chew on that.

Biphobia From Lesbians?

Araliya writes on “Bi-phobia, and the importance of community.” She’s married to man and plans to stay married to him, but…

Today, I think a more accurate description of me would be that I am a lesbian who occasionally fancies men.

She is bothered by a lack of solidarity for bisexual women in the lesbians she has encountered.

To be fair, I should state up front that I have met and in some cases had relationships with polyamorous lesbians who didn’t have a problem with bisexuality, or at least with my being married to a man, so clearly they do exist. However, the overwhelming majority have been bi-phobic, and some very aggressively so.

She tried to explain what could be going on.

I think the problem lies in heterosexual privilege. Out lesbians have committed to a lifetime of potential if not actual discrimination. In most countries, they can’t marry their partners, have little to no protection under the law, and have to deal with the social stigma attached to being gay. They don’t have a choice in the matter. I think the hostility towards bisexuals comes in part from the fact that we can, at any point, retreat into heterosexual privilege. I am married to a man. That affords me a certain amount of social protection, whether I like it or not. Even if I shouted my bisexuality from the rooftops, the fact that I am in a straight relationship means that my queerness can be ignored wholesale. I can ‘feel’ as lesbian as I like – socially, I have a kind of protection that no out, exclusively homosexual person does. And even if I wasn’t married to a man, the fact of my bisexuality represents a sort of escape route if things get too dicey over in lesbian-land – an escape most lesbians do not have and could not access without denying who they are.

I see this as one of the harms of a lack of marriage equality. To reach equality, we need solidarity; we need to stand for the civil rights of all, not just for gays, not just for lesbians, but also for the bisexual, transgendered, polyamorous, and consanguineous.

Polygyny in Kenya

Here’s an article on “Happy Co-wives” from Kenya.

The practice of polygamy is today recognised under customary law. Lawyer Julius Ondika says the new Constitution allows for registration of polygamous marriages, but the man has to first seek the consent of the first wife before entering into the second marriage.

Full marriage equality is only possible if consent is a requirement. This is not about cheating or having a mistress, or duping an existing spouse.

Three Years in Jail For Consensual Sex

To update this situation in Singapore, a man is going to jail for three years for having consensual sex with his daughter, who was 20 at the time.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Leong Wing Tuck said on one night in April 2008, both returned home after a beer drinking session. The accused's wife was not at home. While the accused was lying in bed, a small argument broke out between them when she showed little interest in talking to him as she was busy checking her e-mails on the laptop computer at the edge of the bed.

She apologised, and he asked her for a hug. They began caressing each other. They then had sex. A week later, they had a heated argument over the issue of her furthering her studies. She then texted a friend to call the police, who arrested him.

A sad situation. If he had agreed to have sex with only his wife, then he betrayed his wife. Either way, this should not have been a criminal matter. Looks like a young woman mad at her parent decided to use an unjust law against him.

Bramham Continues Rants Against Freedom to Marr

Daphne Bramham attacks “polygamy,” but it is clear her real problem is with the decisions of the leaders in Bountiful, and those who follow those decisions.

She cites testimony from women in polygynous marriages who say that at times, it is difficult. I know many, many people still in monogamous marriages who say that their marriages are difficult and that it takes a lot of work. And then you can talk to the ones who are divorced.

Those consequences, laid out in the hearing's early days by an economist, an ethnographer and a legal and religious scholar who studies marriage, include early sexualization of girls, downward pressure on the marriage age of girls, poverty, and low educational attainment for both girls and boys.

Early sexualization of girls is happening in the larger culture. Just turn on your television or radio. Visit schools. The difference in places like Bountiful is that rather than having casual sex, they are getting married to someone who is socially obligated to them.

Under cross-examination, a 24-year-old said it was God's will that her 15-year-old sister-wife married a pillar of the Bountiful community more than twice her age.

Enforce age of consent laws. Mandate school attendance, if you’re so worried about “low educational attainment.” But criminalizing consensual marriages contributes to abuse and poverty. The problem these people have is with a couple of leaders in a community. This should not deny consenting adults this freedom to marry.

Calling It Bizarre Doesn't Make it So

Here’s another bigoted rant prompted by the Canadian poly trial.

Try to wrap your brain around the bizarre notion that a smart, female law professor, with all the societal privileges such a position offers, believes polygamy should be decriminalized.

It isn’t bizarre for anyone to believe in having more freedom to marry.

Carissima Mathen, of the University of New Brunswick, used to work for the Women’s Legal and Education Action Fund (LEAF).

The group promotes women’s equality and has pressed for things like universal day care, equal pay for work of equal value and the eradication of discrimination against aboriginal women.

So it’s strange that a lawyer who once worked for LEAF seems to think polygamy isn’t a big deal.

Again, why is it strange?

Instead of worrying about plural marriages, the authorities should concentrate on specific harms and use other Criminal Code laws, such as those prohibiting exploitation and forced marriage, to nail the perps, she explained.

Yes.

The law only requires proof of someone having a conjugal relationship with more than one person at the same time.

“At some point, we need to be comfortable with the idea that people will make choices that we disagree with. They’ll make choices that, to us, seem … not in their best interests,” Mathen said.

Full marriage equality is a matter of liberty and fairness.

The writer attacks the religions of others…

The trouble with that is only men (and the older ones, at that) have autonomy in polygamous communities, particularly the twisted breakaway Mormon commune in Bountiful, B.C. and the like-minded areas in the U.S. run by polygamist crackpots.

That’s not very nice.

Credible experts warn repeatedly that polygamy is harmful to women and children.

How, exactly?

Do we want to be the first western country to OK polygamy?

Canadians should be proud to further increase the freedom to marry. Future generations are going to look back, ashamed that there were these bans on marriage.

Be Back Soon

There is so much news to discuss, but I may not have the time for a couple of days.

A Bigot Speaks Against the Freedom to Marry

Rosie DiManno draws from the Canadian poly trial to make it clear that she doesn't want adults to have the freedom to marry and she doesn't think much of the FLDS religion, either. She also takes swipes at the polyamorous in general and  Muslims. I only quote some of the hate below.

Teenage girls transported over the border for the purpose of sex and breeding: That’s human trafficking.

Underage girls, below the age of consent, conscripted into conjugal relationships: That’s sexual assault.

Lifelong marriage is a little different than human trafficking for prostitution, wouldn't you say?

Adolescent boys driven from their homes by men middle-aged and older — fathers, church and community leaders — as perceived rivals in the competition for nubile mates: That’s societal engineering and a different kind of abuse.

I know of adolescent boys who have been "driven" from home because they wanted personal freedom, rather than familial or peer pressure to adhere to certain rules and expectations. In monogamous homes. Or because their "monogamous" parents divorced each other and married new spouses.

Sec. 293 of the Criminal Code is as clear as arch legalese will allow, forbidding conjugal union with more than one partner at the same time, “whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage."

That law should be overturned in the interest of marriage equality.

But polygamous marriage within the rubric of religion — the coercion and sexual exploitation of girls, whether agreeable to those females or nor, and the trafficking required to sustain a polygamous community — is rightly a crime.

Prosecute child abuse. Don't prosecute people for consenting to marriage.

The law doesn’t force monogamy on married people. And the law does not render illegal the cohabitation of however many people choose to live as a family nor dictate their sleeping arrangements.

It can also be said that ten years ago, the law didn't force heterosexuality on anyone, but same-sex marriage was banned. It is time to increase the freedom to marry again and move towards full marriage equality.

Whether brainwashed or culturally kneaded to it, the obedient daughters of one daddy and multiple moms, their embracing of polygamy can’t possibly be used to justify a legal accommodation for plural marriages.

No, I guess nothing can match her bigotry, right?

This isn’t just about the individuals directly involved. It’s about all of us because we, too, have an ethical stake in acceptance or rejection of polygamy.

That's what the bigots said about interracial marriage and same-sex marriage, too.

The FLDS is not a benign religious sect, like the gentle Amish.

She makes it clear throughout this essay that she dislikes the FLDS and considers the religion invalid, as though they shouldn't even have the freedom of religion. I'm not FLDS or any kind of "LDS," but I respect the freedom of religion, and I stand for the rights of all adults to love, sex, and marriage. Prosecute domestic violence, kidnapping, rape, and molestation, but do not deny marriage equality.

A Feminist Supports the Freedom to Polygamous Marriage

Over at Finding My Feminism, Not Guilty wrote in regards to the Canadian poly trial and the community of Bountiful…

As I have stated before, I am wholly supportive of adult women making the decision to enter into a polygamous marriage. I believe that making polygamy illegal is simply the government seeking to make decisions for women that men believe women are incapable of making for themselves. There is a case in the British Columbia courts involving the polygamous communities in Bountiful, BC. The case is challenging Canada's polygamy laws as unconstitutional on the basis that they are a Charter violation of religious freedom. While I personally don't enjoy supporting ridiculous religious beliefs, the reality is that a polygamous relationship affects nobody else and it thus none of our damn business.

Very well said. She goes on to write that she is against teenage women marrying much older men, and gives a suggestion for revisions in the law.

She links to an earlier message she wrote that references “Sister Wives.”

My gut reaction to polygamy is that it is wrong and I am glad it is illegal. I also wish it were enforced more strictly. Unfortunately, I never let myself just go off my gut reaction; I always think more deeply about issues.

That’s a good thing. My gut reaction when seeing open-heart surgery is “gross!” but it doesn’t mean it should be illegal. It saves lives.

My reasons for disagreeing with polygamy include the manifestation of the patriarchy since it is always men with multiple wives and never, as far as I know, women with multiple husbands; oppression of women; and the effect on the children.

That isn’t true, of course. There are polyandrous families. I link to some of them on this very blog.

She mulls over how things are for the children in polygynous familes….

Except when you delve a little deeper, this is no different from children raised by same-sex couples. There is no evidence kids are harmed by having same-sex parents and any harm that does befall them is due to prejudices in society. If this is the same with children of polygamous families, I really don't have a leg to stand on. Unless there is clear evidence that these children are somehow damaged by being children of a polygamous family, I don’t feel comfortable declaring polygamy wrong.

The reason my gut reaction is that polygamy is wrong is because I don’t understand it and to an extent, the idea repulses me. But I don’t get to judge the lifestyle of other people just because I disagree with it; that isn’t my right. I despise people who judge LGBT, so I cannot in good conscience, without evidence of harm, judge polygamous families.

Yay for solidarity.

Dark Daughta on Polyamory

Dark Daughta writes that “It's actually quite hilarious being a polyamorist with radical feminist politics...” She has an introduction to an extensive essay espousing her theory.

I like sex and sleep with men. I've got two male partners. I engage with them on the daily about the issues they've brought to this relationship to mix with mine. I ask them questions about their privilege as men and about the space this affords them to behave in particular ways and still be constructed as, seen as absolutely perfect poly men.

She makes it clear that…

I'm not here to be accessed no strings attached by roving, wandering, lost, potentially addicted men who do not know how to see wimmin as anything but passageways to lost self esteem, lost personal power, lost sense of feeling attractive.

She is not lacking opinion or passion in her words. Be warned that she does not shy away from using the “f---“ word, if that bothers you.

From the Source

Polygamy in the Desert is a blog from “a polygamous Muslim family who tries to live by Qur'an and Sunnah. This blog tells about our family but also gives the readers an insight into Saudi culture and lifestyle.”

Indiana Man Gets Prison Time For Incest

Anthoney Sims, 23, or Terre Haute, had been found guilty of rape and incest charges. If I recall correctly from previous coverage, one of his parents caught Sims with his sister.

During his sentencing hearing, Sims' father testified for the defense asking for lenience in the sentencing because it's become a family tragedy. He also stated he's "not sure rape occurred."

Is the father in denial? Is his son a monster? Or do we have a situation here in which shock of the parent resulted in a call to the police, and once the police were involved the sister had the option of either admitting to what is still a serious crime (consensual incest) or covering her own rear by telling the police it wasn’t consensual (= rape)? It is easy to imagine someone being caught by a disapproving parent having sex with a sibling and affirming the parent's assumption that it must have been a sexual assault. It is easy to imagine someone would be reluctant to tell a police officer, a judge, or a jury that they were willingly engaging in a felony by having consensual sex with a sibling, especially given the social bigotry towards people who do such things, in addition to the law against it. Maybe this really was a rape, but given the situation, there is an opening for a false conviction.

This article clarifies the sentencing…

A Terre Haute man convicted by a jury of rape received a 16-year prison sentence Wednesday in Vigo Superior Court 6.

Anthony Sims, 23, also received a five-year sentence for the Dec. 1 incest conviction, but that sentence will be served at the same time as the rape sentence.

But there’s more…

Judge Michael Lewis also recommended that Sims receive counseling for anger management and sex crimes during his prison stay, and ordered Sims to register as a sex offender.

He should have to register if he did raped her. The incest charge is superfluous, and someone who has consensual sex with another adult is not a threat to anyone.

In announcing the sentence, Lewis noted that Sims has had numerous run-ins with the law both as an adult and a juvenile.

Sounds like a troubled guy. It also sounds like the police and district attorney would be more apts to press for charges even if this wasn’t really a rape.

During the trial, the jury heard a taped interview with police in which Sims admitted that he had sex with a female relative in April 2009, and that he knew it was incest. But Sims said he did not rape her, and claimed that the sex was consensual.

The victim submitted a written statement to the court on Wednesday requesting leniency for Sims. But she also noted that she fears retaliation from family members if Sims were to receive a long prison sentence.

Is she like one of those abused wives who stick up for their batterers? The verdict on the rape charge would indicate that.

Defense attorney Christopher Shema called the case “one of the most sad” cases he has ever dealt with.

Shema had argued that the convictions of rape and incest were a double jeopardy issue for Sims, but Judge Lewis ruled against that.

Since both charges are felony sex crimes, Sims must serve 85 percent of the prison sentence. However, he will receive credit for the 654 days he has spent in the Vigo County jail on the charges.

Incest is a felony sex crime, even when everyone consents and enjoys it. How messed up is that? If not technically double jeopardy, the incest charge is indeed superfluous. The act is the very same thing for which he was convicted of rape.

Whatever the truth is in this case, a rapist should get serious prison time for the crime of rape. Consensual incest, or consanguineous sex, should not be illegal. Indiana needs to change its laws.

More Testimony in Canadian Poly Trial

One of the wives from Bountiful testifying in the Canadian poly trial told the court that she has suffered bias and prejudice because of the ban on polygamous marriage.

The mother of nine told B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman that many people in mainstream society treat polygamists with bias and prejudice.

“That affects my everyday life. We’ve had to pay so much money to try and stay out of jail. It’s hard to come up with the money that we need,” she said.

People should not be persecuted because of their marriage. Their government should recognize their marriages and honor their choices.

She said she married at the age of 16 at her parents’ suggestion, in order to have someone help support her while she attended college.

Contrary to evidence that has been heard at trial that women have no choice in such arranged marriages, the witness said she chose to marry her husband.

“I felt good about him and I married him.”

These women are attending college. They aren’t being hidden away in a prison. They are choosing these marriages. Let them have that choice.

Rights Activist Murdered

A gay rights activist has been murdered in Uganda. He had been targeted by a newspaper; something I wrote about months ago.

David Kato, 43, was an activist with Sexual Minorities Uganda who was pictured and named by the anti-gay tabloid Rolling Stone -- no relation to the US magazine of the same name -- in a story that called on readers to "hang" gay rights advocates.

"This happened yesterday (Wednesday) at about 13:00," said lawyer John Francis Onyango, referring to Kato's killing.

Onyango said initial reports indicate a man entered Kato's home and struck him on the head before fleeing and that police were focusing on two potential suspects.

Human Rights Watch said in a statement that Kato died on his way to a local hospital.

As we struggle to get the freedom to same-sex marriage in more places, we’re still dealing with this sort of thing. How sad.

After being identified in the October 2010 tabloid article, which accused gay rights leaders of "recruiting" Uganda's youth into homosexuality, Kato and two others successfully sued the paper for damages and secured a high court injunction blocking all media from outing gays.

Kato was also a vocal critic of Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which, if enacted, would massively expand the list of prosecutable offences related to being gay and usher in the death sentence for acts of "aggravated homosexuality."

Currently, the country's penal code, like that of many African countries bans "carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature." An attempt to commit a homosexual act can be punishable by seven years in jail. A conviction for actually committing such an act can bring a life sentence.

Uganda needs serious reform.

Solidarity From Multisexual Pride

Multisexual Pride asked “Should Polyamory be included in the queer community?”

I think it should. I mean it’s different and is actually looked down upon by a lot of people. Even our own community just pushes polyamory away like it’s nothing.

Yes, there are people who don’t exhibit solidarity. But thanks to all who do! Polyamory is attacked by the hetero-monogamist sex police in much the same way as the rest of the queer community. If one truly believes consenting adults should be able to love each other, then polyamory must be included.

I was pointed to Multisexual Pride by The Daily Twitch.

A Coming Out Account

Young single mother Kiwi comes out as lebian and polyamorous after earlier coming out as bisexual.

So I started speaking to a friend of mine who is married with an 8 month old son.To cut to the chase, her marriage is an open marriage on her part, since she is bisexual.

Perhaps “and” would have been better than “since,” beause there are bisexuals who are monogamous and married heterosexuals, gays, and lesbians who are polyamorous or engage in some other form of nonmonogamy. But I’m sure Kiwi didn’t mean that bisexuality always necessitates an open marriage.

Her husband has no problem with her dating (yes, having an actual emotional/sexual relationship) a girl. If anything, he supports it! And no strings involved, either. So after a while of her and I pondering the subject and opportunities, We decided to give it a go. This type of relationship is referred to as Polyamory…In a nutshell, she is a married woman with a girlfriend at the same time. No secrets in either relationship.

Kiwi can see the relationship lasting. Shouldn’t they be able to make it official, if that is what they want?

Then came coming out..and telling a select few family members about my relationship. Coming out went well. No negative comments (Yes, I did it through facebook. It was a quick, easy way to tell a lot of people at once) and a few people weren't surprised in the least.

Telling my family about my girlfriend didn't go nearly as well.

You can go read what she wrote about that.

Best wishes to Kiwi on her life as an out polyamorous lesbian.