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.

Bigot Testifies in Canadian Poly Trial

It is surprising that people are willing to go on the record and make such claims.

Canada has obligations under international human rights law to uphold its current rules prohibiting polygamy, a University of Toronto law professor charged Thursday, calling the practice "inherently wrong.

These people never seem to be able to explain how exactly it is wrong for grown people to make their own marital decisions.

"The patriarchal structure allowing men to take multiple wives offends women's dignity," Dr. Rebecca Cook told a B.C. Supreme Court tasked with determining the constitutionality of Canada's anti-polygamy law.

The women in these POLYGYNOUS marriages disagree. It is a nice try, though. Some have made the same accusation about heterosexual monogamous marriage, too. Why are they wrong and this accusation right? We support FULL marriage equality, allowing people, regardless of gender, to marry the consenting person or persons they choose to marry. Polygyny is only one of many possibilities someone can choose.

"The purpose of international human rights law is to protect and promote the dignity of the individual."

It is not very dignifying to try to make criminals out of them for their harmless marital choices.

Cook, who was called as a witness for the attorney-general of Canada, also testified the trend among nations around the world is to ban the practice of multiple marriages.

There has been a recent trend in the US to ban same-sex marriage, too. Go ahead and check. Most of the laws banning same-sex marriage were passed in the last fifteen years or so. Should Canada ban same-sex marriage? Canada should stand up for the freedom to marry regardless of what other countries are doing.

Cook identified a number of harms to woman that are associated with polygamy, including increased risk of physical violence and increased exposure to sexually transmitted diseases, such as HIV.

Are you kidding me? Does anyone really believe HIV is spreading like wildfire in FLDS communities? Is she talking about Africa??? In Africa or anywhere else, you can get 100 people having sex together and none of them will get HIV if none of them was HIV positive before. Polygamy doesn't spread HIV. Unprotected sex with an infected person might. Concerned about HIV? Promote testing and safe sex... and marriage, instead of discouraging marriage. As far as domestic violence, that is already illegal.

People should be ashamed to spew such bigotry. And don't talk to me about "international human rights law" as long as international organizations ignore killings and rapes (especially of LGBT people), slavery, and environmental pillaging. Seems to me that three people being in a loving marriage in Canada would hardly be something to be worried about.

Someone Else Tries to Firmly Grasp Straw

This writer makes it clear she’s against the rights of consanguineous lovers to love, sex, and marriage.

Incest makes me queasy. It’s gross, disgusting, revolting, vile, and so Freudian. But what if Freud was right? What if we really do want to have sex with our parents?

She goes on to make an argument that, given this start, makes it sound like the only reason she hasn’t had sex with her father is the law, and that's why laws must deny this freedom.

Incest is something that some people are talking more openly about enjoying…Clearly incest is coming out of the closet, so much so that Swiss legislators are calling for the decriminalization of consensual incest and such relationships are already legal in the Netherlands, Spain, Turkey, Israel and China.

But here’s where the limits of the liberal subject are felt. Because although consent is always problematic (do we really consent to work or are we obliged to do so?), it is even more problematic in conditions of extreme power imbalances.

Consent is always problematic? Wow, I wonder if this woman is married. Even if she is, is really married by choice? Did she really consent to be married, or was she powerless to say no because of the shiny diamond offered for her finger, or the power imbalance between her and her spouse? If consent is always problematic and that is reason to use the force of law to prevent or punish certain relationships, how can any contract stand up on a court of law? If consent is always problematic, then all sex, to one degree or another, is rape, right?

But let’s just say that the power balance between a father and daughter is not skewed—let’s just say the daughter is the one who is fabulously wealthy and famous and powerful and the father is a nobody and they have a consensual affair. Does that then make it OK?

Whether she thinks it is OK or not, it shouldn’t be illegal and they shouldn’t be denied the freedom to marry.

I’m going to say no: not just because it makes me ill to think about or because I think the community should regulate the morality of adults, but because I believe such relationships are like second-hand smoke. They threaten the health of all of us by infecting familial relations with the possibility of sexual relations.

Ah, I see. If her friend’s father his enjoying sex with her friend, then she’s going to feel pressured to have sex with her father, is that it? Really? Has she engaged in a same-sex relationship because anti-gay laws have been overturned and there are happy lesbian relationships and lesbians out of the closet? Or has she engaged in a heterosexual relationship only because it is legal? People are attracted to others for their own reasons. People consent to sex with others for their own reasons. That something isn’t a crime doesn’t mean you must do it.

If incest comes out of the closet and is accepted as just an alternative lifestyle between consenting adults, then all parent/child relationships are eroticized, at least potentially, since your father may just be your next lover.

Then we can’t let heterosexual men and women work together, and of course all of our relationships with friends of the same-sex have been eroticized because of LGBT rights. All relationsips that straights have with non-related people of the opposite sex are eroticized, right? Especially between different generations?

These objections can be reduced to “I don’t like it. I wouldn’t do it. So nobody else could possibly truly want to do it. So they shouldn’t be allowed.” Don’t want a consanguineous sexual relationship? Don’t have one. There are some places where they are legal, and family and society has not ended in those places.

Same Old Arguments Against Freedom to Marry

Professor Joseph Henrich of the University of British Columbia testified that polygamy is natural, but that it is harmful. Say what?

Prof. Henrich's testimony pointed to numerous studies indicating that societies that abandon polygamy do better.

What is meant by “do better?”

“There's a lot of research increasingly showing that amongst modern, westernized democracies, societies that are more equal … have a whole bunch of better social outcomes,” Prof. Henrich said.

I want full marriage equality, not polygyny only. How could full marriage equality decrease equality? He’s assuming that everyone will be polygynous.

Prof. Henrich said humans and other primates are genetically predisposed to favour polygamy – specifically, the form of polygamy in which one man has multiple wives.

Indeed, he said monogamy is a relatively recent phenomenon for humans, tracing its history back to ancient Greece and Rome, which in turn influenced Christianity and eventually spread into Europe.

The rise of monogamy led to a different kind of evolution: cultural evolution. Societies that became monogamous, he said, became more advanced and prospered, while those that remained polygamous did not.

There are many “monogamous” societies that I can think of today that are some of the poorest in the world. So many factors go into whether or not a society “prospers” that I wonder if a definite connection can be made?

When men have multiple wives, they require younger women to meet the demand. Prof. Henrich said that leads to teenage brides, with young girls marrying much older men.

It’s called “age of consent.” Problem solved.

That also creates a pool of men, usually of lower economic and social status, with no one left to marry. Those men are more likely to commit crimes, including rape and murder, and abuse drugs and alcohol, Prof. Henrich said.

Yeah, just the other day I heard from a friend who was like, “Dude, if I was still unmarried, I’d be out killing other people. But since I have a wife, I guess I won’t.” I’ve heard this crap before. So what this professor is implying is that a young woman who is an adult should not have the freedom to marry some wealthy middle-aged guy who already has a wife, she should have to marry someone with criminal tendencies, and her love will keep him from raping and murdering. I think someone’s been in the ivory tower too long. He’s assuming these second and third wives would want to marry someone with a criminal bent and that the men would want to marry these women. And he’s assuming that no women would have multiple husbands.

Maybe he has it backwards. Maybe the kind of men who engage in criminal activities are less likely to attract and keep a wife? Say, what are the crime rates in those polygynous countries, anyway? I seem to recall they aren't very high.

Because of the competition for wives, he said, men are more likely to exert control over women, leading to increases in domestic violence and abuse.

That makes no sense. Higher demand means more value, right? Especially when a wife can go find another husband. The fact that the other husband is already married may not be a hindrance, meaning she has more options.

And children suffer in polygamous societies. Prof. Henrich said men are less likely to invest time and resources in child rearing because they father so many children and are constantly focused on finding new wives.

How is this as bad as fathers whose time is divided over children from multiple girlfriends? The answer: It isn't, because with the freedom to marry, the children of polygynous men will have legally married parents.

Full marriage equality will mean more marriage. If marriage is a good thing, what is the problem?

Will This Be Lawrence For Consanguineous Lovers?

I’ve been thinking for a while now that the way the freedom of association and the freedom marry for consanguineous lovers will become a reality in the US through some connected and accomplished couples challenging incest laws that prevent consensual sex between adults, and challenging bigoted attitudes. Will Columbia University professor David Epstein’s case be the Lawrence vs. Texas for consanguineous lovers? Will enough people finally see that, even if they don’t like the thought of it, there’s as little justification for criminalizing consensual sex between adults relatives as there is between criminalizing sex between unrelated adults of the same sex, or any other consenting adults, for that matter?

The New York Daily News had the earliest coverage I’ll examine here.

A popular Columbia professor was charged Thursday with incest - accused of a sick sex relationship with a female relative, prosecutors said.

Sick? Bigoted, much?

Political science Prof. David Epstein, 46, bedded the young woman over a three-year period ending last year, according to court papers.

He was arraigned before a Manhattan judge on a single felony incest count.

It is ridiculous to prosecute someone for consensual sex with another adult.

Epstein, who specializes in American politics and voting rights, has taught at Harvard and Stanford and often is quoted by news organizations. He also has blogged on The Huffington Post.

Professor Epstein, challenge the law. If anyone can make a good case, it will be you. Let’s show the world that this has nothing to do with ignorant preditors attacking children. Educated, cultured people can have a loving relationship like this. Let’s get the distinction firmly established dividing consensual sex between adults from child abuse.

Sources said the victim was over 18 when the relationship began in 2006 and that the two often exchanged twisted text messages.

Twisted? Your bigotry is showing, NYDN.

Epstein faces up to four years behind bars if convicted.

Outrageous. She was 20 or 21 when this allegedly began. Why is this a criminal matter?

From The Huffington Post…

The Spectator reports that Epstein is married to another Columbia political science professor, Sharyn O'Halloran, though a recent update to his Facebook page says he is single.

Could this be the source of the criminal charges? An upset estranged wife?

Law professor Ann Althouse quotes the Supreme Court on the Lawrence vs. Texas case and concludes…

according to Justice Scalia, under the existing precedent, consensual adult incest cannot survive rational-basis review.

Let’s hope Scalia and the rest of the Supreme Court will keep that in mind when they have to decide.

Bridgette P. LaVictoire shows a lack of solidarity and throws consanguineous lovers under the bus, at least ones who aren’t same-sex.

Incest is still illegal in the United States, incidentally, and Mr. Epstein faces four years in jail if convicted.

Gay sex used to be illegal, too. So what? Laws can be changed.

Incest is considered taboo in pretty much every society humans have ever created, at least close incest such as mother-son, father-daughter, sister-brother, etc.

I don’t know where she gets that, considering how many royals engaged in it, and how many siblings experiment today. But again, the same was once said of gay sex. It all goes back to heterosexuals trying to consolidate power through arranged marriages.

In fact, humans, and just about all animals, are programmed to avoid direct mating with someone in that immediate circle because doing so is very detrimental to the gene pool.

Most sex does not result in a live birth. Most sex is not intended to. She, strangely, is making a “sex is for procreation” argument.

Smkovalinsky called her out…

Many people are “grossed out” by gay sex, but does this mean it ought to be illegal? Gay relations and incest relations are in NO way connected or similar, but the “gross out” factor should have nothing to do with whether or not they are deemed lawful. The professor and his daughter were in fact 2 consenting adults.

Bridgette P. LaVictoire replied…

Apparently you did not read what I wrote. Incidentally, it has been argued that no matter how consensual the incestuous relationship, it is never truly consensual.

All kinds of nonsense has been “argued.” What an ineffective excuse for bigotry.

Smkovalinsky again…

I did read in full what you said. Yes, the bigot was wrong: One being pro gay does not mean that one will support the professor. And yet, not long ago, many recoiled at gay sex, in the same way they now do at incest. The woman was 24: She had rights as well as duties, and we are autonomous over the age of 18, in the eyes of the law. Of course his being her father adds a coercive element, but she is well aware of this, and that she has every right to turn him away. Let’s hear what she has to say, and why she too is not being arrested, as she is an adult who has committed the crime of incest. In some scholarly camps, it has been argued that the gay identity is a coerced one for many; in my opinion, and I am sure yours as well, that is untrue and insulting. See also “Genetic Sexual Attraction”.

Bridgette P. LaVictoire…

I am more than aware of the argument behind Genetic Sexual Attraction, and that there is little to no proof of it existing.

She has her head in the sand.

My point is not to argue for or against incest here, but that there are not a lot of people clamoring for it to be legal.

That doesn’t mean it should be illegal. It just means that the civil rights groups have been derelict in this area. She went on to threaten Smkovalinsky with being banned for embarrassing her. It’s so sad when people who know what it is like to deal with bigotry perpetuate or stay silent about it themselves.

Consanguineous Sex Among the Elites

Much is being made of the arrest of Columbia University professor David Epstein's arrest on incest charges for having consensual sex with his adult daughter.

I've been a little busy. I plan to have a good look here on Monday (tomorrow) at both the situation and the reaction to it. There is much to write.

Poly Women Sought For Master’s Thesis

Poly women can be in high demand for other reasons, but in this case, it is for academia.

Looking for Interviews with Polyamorous Women

Have you been or are you currently in a consensual relationship with more than one partner, where all partners know about each other? Would you describe yourself or your relationship as polyamorous?

I am looking to interview women between the ages of 18-35 about their experiences in polyamorous relationships. I am especially interested in women from diverse race/ethnicities, social class backgrounds, and sexual identities. Participants must be currently living in the U.S. Interviews can be conducted in-person (if local to San Diego, California) or via e-mail.

All in-person interviewees will receive a $15 gift certificate to either Amazon.com or Barnes and Noble. E-mail participants will be entered into a lottery to win one of five $15 gift certificates to either Amazon.com or Barnes and Noble.

This is a research study being conducted as part of a Master’s thesis through San Diego State University. Your participation would be voluntary. You will be asked questions about your experiences with polyamory and its role in your life.

If interested, please contact Sarah Wheeler at swheeler@rohan.sdsu.edu with a short description about yourself (age, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.) and your current or most recent polyamorous relationship. Please also indicate whether you would like to participate via e-mail or in-person interview. Thank you for your interest!

The more research, the better as far as I’m concerned, because more people will learn the benefits of polyamory, and the more people who will support polyamory and polygamy as right.

Sex Week at College

The author of this piece calls for a more restrictive, narrow, confining approach to Sex Week at colleges.

Sex-toy raffles and giveaways? Workshops featuring graphic, violent pornography and simulated sex techniques? Teaching about polyamory but not about monogamy or abstinence?

Oh no! Polyamory? You mean like how some consenting adults get what they need in a way other than monogamy? We can’t let anyone know about that, no. Seriously, monogamy and abstinence should be talked about as well. I’m sure if someone wanted to speak about those things, they wouldn’t be prevented.

I don’t see what the objection is to any of the other things. “graphic, violent pornography” is not my thing, but if someone wants to put BDSM on video and someone wants to watch it, why should anyone else care? Or are we just talking about spanking? Are “violent” images only okay if nobody is having sex?

The events, billed as educational, used the universities' names and facilities. They were open to everyone, including the outside community.

Is this a complaint about generosity? If they were restricted, I think the writer might cite that as nefarious, too.

Sex-industry representatives were significantly involved in many of the programs and sponsorships, along with contributions from nonprofit groups such as the Kinsey Institute and Planned Parenthood.

And…?

Judging from the program descriptions, the emphasis of most Sex Week programming seems to be more on providing entertainment and promoting pleasure, rather than teaching students about sexual health and safety. While some sessions covered topics like women's health and sex trafficking, others featured such offerings as pornographic-film screenings; a lingerie show using college students as models; and a topless porn star demonstrating bondage, discipline, dominance, and submission to a student audience.

And the problem is…?

Similar programs are appearing on other campuses as well. In April, a "vayjayducation" workshop at Harvard featured a raffle for $1,000 worth of donated sex toys and the showing of a graphic film clip of a woman's genitals.

Oh, heavens no. There might be one or two people who have never seen such things. They shouldn’t be allowed to. It might, uh, might… well I’m sure the result would be disastrous.

Make no mistake about it—adult stores and sex-toy companies are actively seeking access to students through campus resources.

And this is different from other businesses… how?

Privacy is a grave matter of concern in other on-campus sex programming, too. Dozens of pictures of students, some posing with sex toys, are featured on the Facebook page of a frequent presenter at college sex workshops.

My guess is that the people in those pictures consented.

Even if the students gave permission at the time for their pictures to be taken or recorded, such stories and images can exist forever on the Internet, and years later can negatively affect students' chances of finding employment.

Sounds like we need employers to be more sex-positive and respectful of others.

The writer goes on to give a list of suggestions to try to make Sex Week less interesting.

Ideally, Sex Week should also include information on the right to love, sex, and marriage regardless of birth; about the realities of relationships that are interracial, intergenerational, same-sex, poly, or consanguineous.