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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Rev Bev Has a Polyamory Workshop

An ordained minister in Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), “Rev Bev” Beverly Dale preaches these words…

Pleasure is good.

The body is good.

Sex is good.

No argument here!

For 21 years, Dale was a campus minister at the University of Pennsylvania, teaching students that healthy sexuality is about more than plumbing, lust, and penetration. She encouraged them to be proud of their bodies, to become independent moral agents (deciding if, when, and how to have sex), to resist the hookup culture's potential for exploitation, and to experience sexual pleasure and intimacy in a state unadulterated by alcohol. Along the way, she earned the affectionate nickname "Rev Bev."

A farmer's daughter from Illinois, a former submissive wife who married the first time at age 18, the Rev Bev describes her evolution in her one-woman performance piece, An Irreverent Journey From Eggbeaters to Vibrators. She has participated in literary salons with an erotic theme, held discussion groups in bars and taprooms for young adults about sexual decision-making, and next month she'll lead a workshop called "Clear Conscience: Morality and Polyamory" for those considering opening their intimate relationships to more than one partner.

And now you know.

Be Reasonable

Incest laws were debated in a discussion online at the Richard Dawkins Foundation. The recent Swiss proposal to decriminalize sex between consenting adults was used as the starting point.

A spokesman for the upper house said - quite rightly and justly in my opinion - that the often-cited eugenic reason for a law against incest is not something that a civilized society can use as a basis for a law. After all no one seriously considers punishing the drinking of alcohol during pregnancy, or sex between partners who both have a history of genetic defects in their respective family backgrounds. The abuse argument also doesn't carry us very far, since sexual abuse, coercion and rape are already illegal.

Yes, this is exactly right.

Are there any rational moral reasons for upholding this law against what some consider the last sexual taboo?

No.

CallumW…

I don't really see how a relationship or sex between relatives could be morally wrong if both consent and are uncoerced, however the incidence of genetic disease in inbred families when parents are only cousins is much higher than those with access to a more diverse gene pool, and if siblings were to produce offspring the risk would be greater again. This doesn't really seem fair on the children of such a union. But then to legally ban people from having children in circumstances when the risk of genetic disease is particularly high seems to be a gross infringement of their human rights.

Rtambree…

Sexual acts and procreation are two different things.

Right again!

Still, people tried the “deformed babies” argument, so this comment was made by MMAtheist…

Since the concern about birth defects is predictably the big issue here, I'll repeat my question to everyone: should we also start regulating against older women giving birth to children?

"The British Down's Syndrome Association has posted a chart showing the risk of producing a baby with the syndrome at various maternal ages. From age 20 to age 31, the risk doubles. From 31 to 35, it doubles again. From 35 to 38, it doubles again. From 38 to 41, it more than doubles again."

What about smoking and drinking when you're pregnant? Is that illegal in your country? Shouldn't it be if your #1 concern is birth defects?

Jice…

"Because it makes me feel iky," seems to be the only deffence I see, which flat out is on the same page as religious thinking that your view is supperior to that of thoes providing the consent.

Sex /= offspring. We aren't the catholic church here, we allow contriception.

To set a precident that it's ok to legislate against couples who might have children with birth defects is wrong in any free country. Who makes the decision? If I had a certain gene that would give my baby a 20% chance to be born with Crie-de-chat should I be legislated against, reguardless of who my partner is? Because of a slim chance that if I even have a child (gay) that it has a slim chance to not be perfectly healthy?

And what about gay incest? Any arguments about genetics fly out the window in that case and now all you're doing is legislating against brothers/sisters who like to have a close relationship that includes sexual activity.

And I don't really think age plays much of a factor either. If they are 12, it's just the same curiosity we all grew up with which could amount to a few encounters, and if they are 16, then they are adult enough to make up thier own minds and shouldn't have to be worried about going to jail because they enjoy themselves. Anything younger and they probably haven't even hit puberty and it's completely innocent. And if there is an age gap, say 12 and 18, then it's already illegal through other laws.

The only potential I can see for this law is to double charge sex offenders, of the variety in which paretns molest thier childern. Yes, it's incest, but it's also pedophelia which unless Swiss are all ok with that, is probably still illegal, and still carries the same penalties.

Double dipping laws like this don't help prevent crime, or help the victims of thoes crimes. They just make criminals out of otherwise innocent people whos only crime was to not hurt anyone while doing what they like.

Very well said.

Debonnesnouvelles…

In the rare case where an adult decides that he/she wants to have a relationship with another consenting grown up relative, would the law in this case not infringe on their rights not to be discriminated against?

The law already is in place to punish abusers. Should it punish people who are in a rare position of quite genuinely wanting to love someone they are not supposed to love?

Absolutely not.

Debonnesnouvelles looks at Saletan’s argument…

How would "confusing the relationships" provide a rational basis for laws against incest in view of a constitution? Is confusing relationships a crime?

Foundationist follows up…

I can well imagine a scenario where an incestuous relationship might be perfectly healthy, normal and indeed even psychologically beneficial for the couple. So could countless authors and dramatists through the ages who liked to toy with that taboo.

Yes. Just take a look here (NSFW text).

Punishing incest as a criminal offence in itself seems to be based on numerous preconceived notions and prejudices, especially when the law is unspecified enough to even apply to, say, a lesbian affair between adult half-sisters with a small age gap.

The comments I read did not contain any solid reason to deny the right of consenting adults to love, sex, and marriage simply because they are close relatives. There were many comments from allies.

Solidarity at the Empty Closet

Bryan90, a gay male, asked for opinions on consanguineous sex and love.

If you know someone (this means that if you don't want to disclose your own identity, you can just say you 'know someone') who wants to have a romantic or sexual relationship with his/her siblings (same-sex or opposite-sex) would you be able to share your story?

Black Cat, a gay male, wrote…

My step-dad and his sister are awful close if you catch my drift. Based solely on the way they interact, and the fact that they almost worship one another, as well as some stories we've heard from other people, they've been involved once or twice.

A couple of people brought up cocerns with being open and honest about something that is criminal in many places. Bryan90 wrote…

wow, I never knew that having a relationship would be illegal - i always thought it was the marriage that was illegal.

Yes, unfortunately, it is illegal in many places (this discussion consists mostly of Canadians and Americans) for people to have consensual sex just because they are close biological or legal relatives. This needs to be changed.

djt820, a gay male, wrote…

Incest is fine. Never had any experience considering I don't have any siblings and I don't see my cousins at all. As long as both parties can consent, its fine.

Thanks!

Beachboi92, a gay male, wrote…

While i personally am iffy on the idea of dating blood-relatives (while not so much non-blood relatives) i'm still also the kind to say whatever makes you happy, no ones getting hurt and it's two consensual adults so if you where to argue it there really isn't an issue. I mean honestly there isn't much of a moral reason to say incestuous relationships are bad.

All through history people have been involved within their own families, i'm sure it happens in the animal kingdom, and hell even the bible leaves no option but incest for how people came to exist so go bananas xD

Thanks!

Maverick, who identifies as a bisexual “transgender boi” wrote…

Any sexual act between consensual adults is fine with me, but the only in-family infatuation I've ever had is on my adopted brother, and it passed pretty quickly after he was introduced into our family as an older teenager. Also, I never would have acted on it, not then and especially not now.

I'm pretty sure my cousin was fooling around with her stepbrother when her mom got remarried and they moved in together. But I don't consider sexual/romantic relationships involving adopted siblings and step-siblings to really be that weird...after all, you're not really related.

Thanks!

Darkwing65, a “bisexualish” male, wrote…

Love and lust are boundless offenders. Reason will guide us and passion will drive us. I think as long as no one is coerced or harmed in any way, go for it. Love is maniacally beautiful like that.

It’s nice to see solidarity from the G and B males for the rights of consenting adults to consanguineous love, sex, and marriage. People who have had or want consanguineous relationships should likewise show solidatiry for LGBT rights (as many do).

Denial of Freedom Harms

This blogger considers the Canadian poly trial, comparing the benefit of freedom against supposed harm, and comes down on the side of being an ally for the freedom to marry.

Should polygamy be legal?

Yes. Consenting adults should be able to marry each other.

That restricting the ability to legally engage in polygamy is restricting freedom is obvious. That it is often a religious freedom doesn't specifically matter to me - although as a practical matter this will be argued in court as explicitly religious freedom being infringed on - for I think that whatever the justification, if people have a desire to do something then restricting that desire is a restriction of freedom.

On the other hand, there is the potential that polygamy leads to harm. As Craig Jones, a lawyer for the BC government puts it, "all forms of polygamy contribute to the discrimination of women and the sexualization of young girls".

Jones can say anything he wants to. That doesn’t make it true. Isn’t it discrimination against women to prevent a woman from entering in to a marriage of her own choosing?

Now polygamy has been heavily stigmatized as well as poorly represented by the occasional - but much publicized - genuinely predatory people or in very different cultures and so it gets a perhaps poorer representation as harmful than is justified. However, for the purpose of discussion let us just accept at face value all of this alleged harm.

The result is we now have to balance these two sides. On the one side, we are restricting freedoms and on the other we are preventing harm. It should be noted that the burden of proof is firmly in the latter camp to establish harm.

They haven’t, as far as I can tell.

My view is that it should be legal. Polygamy has a very large cultural stigma that is impeding the legal freedom of people to marry how they choose. The alleged harm it does I think is both overstated and not at all obvious that restricting polygamy is fixing the specific problems we wish to address.

Thank you! The writer goes on to cite the attacks on the right to same-sex marriage, and how some of theme are like the attacks on the right to polygamy.

Someone Not Poly Tries to Understand Poly

This blogger doesn’t get polyamory, but writes about the topic thoughtfully, instead of claiming to know that poly people and poly relationships are defective.

The truth is without any experience of my own, I don't know whether poly is more of a choice or more of a way you are. I think it would be insulting if I tried to make a judgement on that, because I really have no idea. I will say that some people seem to be more suited for poly than others. I would imagine to have a good poly you must have really good communication skills, a great ability to manage jealousy and a strong sense of self-confidence.

Of course, those things are probably required for a good monogamous relationship, but somehow I imagine having more than two people somewhat cranks it up a notch.

There was a comment left by Polyamory Paradigm…

Personally, I have a hard time thinking of Polyamory as a sexual orientation. Mainly because I know hetro, bi, and gay people who are poly which indicates it can't be a sexual orientation.

A better question in my mind is whether Polyamory is a general orientation or a lifestyle. But again, you can be in the D/s lifestyle and be hetro, bi, gay and still be Poly.

As someone who has been Poly my whole life I have a hard time living monogamously. I simply can't find it in myself to restrict my feelings when I strongly connect with someone. (I'm not talking strictly about sex either). For me, the freedom to love at will is inherent in my being. For others I know, Polyamory has been a conscious choice. I think either way, and even monogamy, is just fine if that's what makes you happy.

You don't have to like the relationships other adults have. You don't have to understand them, though if you want to try there are plenty of us who will be happy to explain things. But even if you don't like or don't understand, please support the rights of others to love, sex, and marriage.

Without a Victim, It Shouldn’t be a Crime

David Epstein’s case continues to get people talking.

Do you think both should be charged with incest?

So do you think Incest is a two-way street? I think Incest is a two way street.

Neither should be charged with a crime. Incest should not be a crime when it involves consensual sex. It should only be a factor that enhances sentencing for child molestation, child rape, and statutory rape, which are already crimes. Rape or sexual assault involving two or more non-dependent adults should bring severe sentences regardless of whether the people involved are a related.

If David Epstein’s daughter was a consenting party, the law should have nothing to do with this.

Mom2Max is clearly disgusted by the idea, but still sees that this is not a criminal matter…

However sick and disgusting incest may be – I don’t see how it is a crime if the sex was consensual. What business is it of the governments is neither of the parties have a problem with it?

Excuse me while I go vomit now.

Nova…

God, they should get rid of incest laws. Incest is a two way street. If it’s consensual, what’s the problem? Both people want it.

Thank you.

indie chick…

No. Incest USUALLY occurs when one of the victims is raped.
rape is not a two way street.

We actually have no way of knowing for sure how much consensual sex there is between close relatives, whether adults or minors who are close in age. I have witnessed and read many credible accounts of consenual sex between close relatives. So statements that incest “usually” occurs through rape is a statement that can’t be definitively supported. Rape, of course, should be illegal.

most people will not willingly have sex with their relatives.

Most people will not have intergenerational sex, and most men will not willingly have sex with another man, but we don’t make those things illegal.

Whether or not something should be illegal is a different question than whether or not someone wants to do it themselves. Most people can’t seem to give any reason as to which Esptein should be charged with a crime other than “I wouldn’t want to do that.” That’s not a good enough reason.

The Simple Test

Ginny ponders “slippery slope” concepts, and explains why having the freedom to same-sex marriage and polygamous marriage does not justify things like marrying children.

Consent is the watchword of modern sexual ethics. It’s the difference between BDSM and abuse. It’s the difference between polyamory and cheating. It’s the difference between rape and… sex. Anything two (or more) able, informed adults give consent to in private is generally considered okay.

It’s simple enough, but some people want to make it more complicated than that.

“That’s not natural” really just means “That makes me uncomfortable.” And I hope we can all agree that an individual’s sense of comfort or discomfort makes for a really lousy moral guide.

Besides, good arguments can be made that polygamy is natural. Discomfort is definitely not a good guide for law or morality. Heart surgery is uncomfortable and looks disgusting to many people, but it can be a very good thing. Sticking up for civil rights can bring a whole lot of discomfort, but it is the right thing to do.

Someone might say, “But that goes against my religious code!” Fine, then don’t do that, and encourage your religious brethren not to do it either. But that has nothing to do with whether a thing should be legal or acceptable in the culture outside your religion.

Couldn’t have written it better myself.

We hold very highly the rights of heterosexual people to live, love, and create families as they see fit. In time, I hope that consenting adults of any number and gender are given the same level of respect.

Let’s make it happen!

Yet Another Pespective on Consanguineous Sex Restrictions

At the Atheist Experience, Matt D. ponders laws and bigotry towards consanguineous sex. Atheism isn’t invoked in the argument. Rather, the venue meant that nobody invoked a religious restriction on sexuality or marriage.

While I personally find the concept of marrying a sibling, etc. rather "icky", there are lots of things that I find "icky" that aren't necessarily immoral and that society has no business restricting. My aversion is something that most of us experience and it's known as the "Westermarck effect" but that's not the case for everyone.

There are certainly biological reasons to avoid inbreeding, but marriage isn't necessarily about procreation. There are also psychological issues that surround taboo relationships (both contributing psychological issues and psychological issues that result from such unions) but we have to be very careful to distinguish between issues caused by societal disdain for something (as was/is the case with inter-racial marriages) and psychological harm that is intrinsic to the relationship (a daughter raised segregated from societal influence in order to 'brainwash' an incestuous spouse).

So far, so good.

I think there's a compelling argument that we should generally discourage incestuous marriage in order to minimize the risk of birth defects and psychological trauma, but that we are probably not justified in prohibiting those unions as a matter of law.

It is good that he recognizes the lack of justification for laws against consanguineous sex. It is too bad he seems here (see below) to express support for discouraging people who have found love in this way.

He continues, pleading a lack of enough information to make a move either way.

Until such time as we have compelling evidence (and not just a visceral aversion), I'm not sure that I can support laws against such marriages - but I'm in favor of discouraging it by education and investigating such relationships to ensure that we have true, informed consent.

Not exactly support, but at least it isn’t another knee-jerk condemnation and spewing of hate.

He does cut some slack for people who were unaware of their close biological relation when they fell in love, who are people who most likely are experiencing Genetic Sexual Attraction.

I'm of the opinion that it would be more immoral to prevent their marriage that to allow it...and that colors the entire spectrum of possible incestuous relationships...especially when you consider that some people get married, lead happy lives and find out about their kinship years later.

He ends with…

As a matter of personal freedom, unless someone can demonstrate clear harm, I don't see a compelling reason to disallow it.

Then comes back with an amendment…

Re-reading that, it looked like I was in favor of discouraging a loving relationship between people who happened to be related and that's not the case. The education comment was intended to address the real risks and not be a pronouncement about whom you should/shouldn't love or marry.

So it looks like we have another ally. Thank you, Matt D.

Most of the comments expressed general support for this freedom to love, sex, and marriage (and to poly people, too), though there was a disapproval of procreation.

Weedwhacker showed a lack of solidarity...

This "argument" is nothing but a distraction tactic to make same-sex marriage sound illicit and immoral.

Actually, we are just trying to fight for the rights of all consenting adults to love, sex, and marriage with the person or person(s) of their own choosing. You don’t have to like the idea of consanguineous sex to see that there is a larger set of rights that covers having sex with someone of the same sex and having sex with someone who is a close relative. The right to free speech not only covers, say, unpopular books about Roman Catholicism, but also paintings of ugly dogs, and movies critical of Richard Nixon. Are those all the same things? No, they aren’t, but are all protected by the right to free speech, even if only a few people want to make paintings of ugly dogs.

Dawn evaluated the genetics…

I don't have the exact numbers at my fingertips (got rid of my genetics books about 6 years ago) but if I recall correctly, the "unknown" risk of birth defects due to familial marriage (sibling, parent/child) is about 10% (and I may be recalling incorrectly and it might be 10% greater than the usual risk of about 3% in the general public marriages).

Of course, that is an increase of risk. But so is the marriage of 2 persons with sickle cell trait. We don't demand those people not marry. We don't say Ashkenazi (sp?) Jews not marry within the group, although they have a higher risk of birth defects. We don't require anyone get genetic testing. So why keep incestuous marriage illegal?

Thanks, Dawn.

If someone does practice a religion and that is the basis for some of their personal restrictions when it comes to sex or marriage, they should certainly be free to live that way themselves. But they should not be able to force anyone else to adopt the same restictions.

Not Everything You Don’t Like Should Be Illegal

Ishmael N. Daro thinks it is fine for everyone to tell consanguineous lovers they are bad for finding happiness with each other, but even he, despite his revulsion, thinks there shouldn’t be a law against consanguineous sex.

After all, if incest occurs between an adult and a minor there are already laws in place against pedophilia and sexual abuse. Two consenting adults, however, should be free to do whatever they like in the bedroom, even if their relation makes us squeamish.

Thanks for this admission.

Around the world, half a dozen countries have no laws against consensual incest between adults including France, Spain and Russia. These countries are not suffering from moral collapse any more than Canada and the U.S.

Sometimes, certain sexual practices inspire such revulsion they bring the full force of the law upon those who take part in them. Interracial marriage was once seen as abhorrent, but today you would be hard-pressed to find any serious opposition to such a union. Homosexuality, too, used to inspire violent opposition - and arguably still does - but most people accept it as part of mainstream society.

We are making progress. Let’s keep tearing down the walls of hate that prevent full marriage equality.