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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Solidarity From Will O’Bryan

Will O’Bryan, who is gay, wrote a great piece over the controversy surrounding the comparisons made to the David Epstein situation and same-sex relationships, expressing his solidarity with those of us who want consanguineous lovers to allowed their happiness. First, though, he expresses concerns about statements by the lawyer for David Esptein…

Of course, the reasonable, conventional reflex from the gay community and its allies would be an utter repudiation of that rationale, with arguments, diagrams and psychoanalysis as to why incest and homosexuality are apples and oranges.

They are different categories of sexuality. There are some consanguineous same-sex couples, for example. But both categories fall under “consenting adults.”

He also see’s Saletan’s point…

The portion of Saletan's argument that boils down to the gay taboo of same-sex lovin' being the only avenue available for gay people, while someone with an incestuous attraction could simply look elsewhere, has some merit.

What gives anyone the right to tell consenting adults they have to look elsewhere instead of to each other?

Thankfully, he goes on to express a high level of solidarity.

In the ways that we've strained to outdo our oppressors, which seems a common reaction among the oppressed, aiming to prove we can surpass whatever hurdles our oppressors place before us, we perhaps emulate them in ways that make me as uncomfortable as a God-fearing, GOProud, married gay parent with four children and a golden lab when the leather/BDSM float passes at the pride parade.

Those who have been told to stand at the back of the bus should not be so quick to throw others under it. Instead, we should all join together and insist that we all should have equal access to sit in the bus.

I will grant that incest and homosexuality are not the same things, particularly when it comes to a parent and child. But I may also feel uncomfortable when I see an employer bedding an employee or a teacher fooling around with a pupil. But I'm not going to feel threatened if someone equates the two for the sake of legal argument. Why should I feel uncomfortable?

Thank you.

The human norm evolved so that we have two sexes, each sexually attracted to the opposite, leading to reproduction. That norm has often been enshrined into law. But I don't want to submit to such laws because I am gay. If I was one of those kinky Bel Ami ''twincest'' twins, Milo and Elijah Peters, considering my brother my boyfriend, I might also resent the laws against incest. I can promise, however, my straight brother and I will never be getting it on. That does not, however, put me in any position to support a law telling Milo and Elijah they can't do their (highly lucrative) thing.

Thanks again.

So I just can't get that worked up about two grown people having an incestuous relationship. Even in the case of the Epsteins where a line has been crossed between parent and child and there may be psychological fallout for years to come for the latter, she was an adult when this began.

Don’t we all know people, perhaps ourselves, who have been emotionally scarred from nonconsanguineous relationships with people roughly the same age? Infatuation or love always brings such potential. Relationships can end up hurting, but they can also bring much happiness. Either way, as long as the participants consented, the law should not be against it. O’Bryan eloquently gives one reason why…

And for those who do care, who demand laws to prevent this sort of thing, who are you kidding? I don't really know how such laws might affect the incestuous, but I can tell you that attempts to ban homosexuality did little more than ruin lives – of the persecuted, of those forced into unhappy marriages, and sometimes the children of those marriages. They did not help society. And with or without such laws, the number of gay people remains the same.

Yes. It seems that the greatest harms caused by these relationships are, ironically, caused by the fact that others try to interfere in them with laws, violence, harassment, and insults.

I've been told my sexual expression is disgusting, though that was far truer 20 or 30 years ago. Now that I can get married and join the Army, I could wrap myself in propriety and call others disgusting. Because of my experience, having to consider and dissect and wear my sexuality for decades, rather than simply take it for granted, I cannot. Instead, I grant that if two – or 10 – adults consent to sexual activity, it's really none of my business. If the thought of it makes me feel foul, I will think about something else.

Brilliant. Amazingly brilliant. Thank you, Will O’Bryan.

Hate Adds Pain to Genetic Sexual Attration and GSA Relationships

Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA) is a condition that may be experienced when close genetic relatives who have been separated for significant amounts of time, often since birth or before puberty, are reunited. It describes an intense physical or emotional attraction, and may include sexual attraction or be expressed through sex. The attraction may or may not be mutual. Even if mutual, not all GSA results in sexual contact. (Some people prefer the term "Genetic Attraction.")

Reading accounts or watching documentaries about those struggling with GSA feelings or related actions can be heartbreaking. There are many reasons as to why.

First of all, there are all of the problems that come with any attraction or any relationship. One person is attracted to someone else and that attraction is not mutual, or is mutual only for period of time. Relationships involve at least two different people who are trying to get along with each other and to deal with those outside the relationship as well. This can all be increased when the individuals are biologically related.

This new attraction and resulting relationship can bring change, disruption, and uncertaintly to someone’s life, which is again something that may happen in general relationships as well, but can be more of an issue with biological relatives and the strong pull of GSA. This is especially a problem when someone has made a life and perhaps has existing vows with someone else. For example, a married, monogamous woman who gets in contact with a biological half-brother and finds herself strongly attracted to him and wanting to spend time with him, with or without sex. The time and attention taken from her marriage may be enough of a problem, but add sexual cheating to the mix, and it is even worse. She may love and value her husband, but feels this intense connection or draw to her half-brother that must be suppressed if she wants to have a chance to save her marriage. In that case, either choice is painful. Or what if she doesn’t want to save her marriage? What if it was dying before the GSA issue surfaced? Divorce is usually a painful experience anyway.

Some people experiencing GSA are disturbed by their feelings (or the feelings of their relative) because they feel a need to have that person in their life as a sibling, a parent, or a child, and they see sexual attraction or sex as incompatible with that role. They may feel like they finally had something they were missing for so long, only to have it taken away by unexpected or unwanted feelings and resulting tensions. Just the unfamiliar nature of these feelings may be bothersome.

In addition to all of the usual problems someone with an unrequited attraction or a mutual attraction between people can bring, one that is different with GSA is, of course, the legal, familial, social, and religious prohibitions imposed against sex with and marriage to close relatives. Incest between consenting adults is still criminalized in many places, including most US states, and bigotry against people in such relationships or experiencing such attraction continues to be perpetuated, sometimes in the most hateful and harmful ways.

This is sometimes compounded by a lack of solidarity. Even if there is a GSA relationship that didn’t break up any existing families, marriages, or relationships, and the individuals are happy together and able to share their lives in a functional way despite legal and social challenges, they may be rebuffed or judged when they reach out for understanding and support from others. Other people experiencing GSA who have decided not to have sexual relationship or have ended a sexual relationship or want to end their sexual relationship may disapprove of those who want to engage in or continue their sexual relationship. Or, if the GSA relationship is intergenerational, interracial [biracial with non-biracial], same-sex, or polyamorous, other people experiencing GSA may express disapproval based on one of those factors (in addition to all of the other people who disapprove based on those factors). Finally, those who have recently struggled or are still struggling for their own freedom to marry or just the basic freedom of association, such as LGBT people or poly people, may express contempt for consanguineous sex and love, including in cases where GSA is factor, or may be unsupportive of those in GSA relationships gaining the freedom to marry. Thus, instead of finding comfort from those who have also been targeted by those who want to control the sexuality of other adults, people experiencing GSA may find some more vitriol or at least a cold shoulder.

All of these things can bring pain and hardship to GSA relationships. Laws and public attitudes can be changed. There is some help for those struggling to deal with their feelings or the feelings of someone else or just to be themselves, but that help would be greatly aided by a change in the laws and public attitudes. That is one reason I call for solidarity. Someone who is struggling with GSA does not need the added burden of laws and finger-wavers that treat them as second-class citizens or with hate and impede their ability to make decisions in the best interest of themselves and their loved ones.

[Edited for typing errors and clarity.]

Equal Protection Under the Law

David Epstein’s lawyer Matthew Galluzzo wrote to Yes But However and makes the legal case for striking down laws against consensual consanguineous sex, while still trying to hint at a personal disapproval of such sex.

Second, I am a criminal defense attorney and not a religious leader or political activist, and accordingly, my argument is a legal one, not a moral or political one. I have never argued that homosexuality is the moral equivalent of incest, nor would I. I have never argued that the two are somehow similar biologically, psychologically, or ethically…

The comparison between the two is purely a legal one, and the legal argument that I am making is not a novel one – in fact, no less a legal scholar than Justice Scalia has already made it. I suggest that you read his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, but I will summarize the case for you:

This is very, very important.

Perhaps you didn’t realize it, but up until 2003, homosexual sodomy was still illegal in Texas and a few other states. Mr. Lawrence was arrested in Texas after being caught in the act by police officers in his own home, and was convicted of a crime as a result! He challenged the constitutionality of the state ban on sodomy, and initially lost because the Supreme Court had previously upheld the constitutionality of a similar state-level ban on sodomy in Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986.

However, in 2003, the Supreme Court overturned its own recent decision in Bowers v. Hardwick and declared that Mr. Lawrence had a constitutional right to engage in sodomy in the privacy of his own home, and that public opinion about the morality of such conduct was no longer a valid basis to deny him that liberty.

This same reasoning can be applied to poly and consanguineous sex.

In the dissenting opinion, Scalia countered that as a result of this logic, there is a very valid argument to be made that there is now a constitutional right to engage in acts of consensual adult incest. That is the argument that I am now making on behalf of my client, and i explained that to both ABC News and the Huffington Post.

I hope his argument works.

If your counter-argument is that incest ought to be illegal because it is always coercive (and thus, the ban on it is necessary to advance a compelling state interest), then I ask you the following questions:

1) Should it be illegal for a 33 year old sister and a 34 year old brother to have sex with each other? Is that relationship really coercive?

Very good question, because of course it shouldn’t be illegal. Also, for people who claim that all parent-adult child sex is coercive, I want to know at what point the coercion shifts to the child, given that some aging parents exhibit increasing dependence on their child?

2) Should all coercive sex result in an arrest? If so, the police would need to start arresting bosses for having sex with their secretaries, rich older men for having sex with younger less-wealthy people, and so on, and so on. Fortunately for them, there is nothing in the New York penal law that makes “coercive” sex illegal in the absence of force.

Go read the whole thing. John Romano indicates that he is his not on board with solidarity, but doesn’t refute Galluzzo’s points.

"Ick" Is Not a Justification For Bigoted Laws

Bridgette P. LaVictoire says the “ick” factor should not be used against consenting adults in their sex lives.

A large part of the reason for people- especially men- to push back against homosexuality- especially gay male sexuality- has to do with the ‘ick factor’. That is, to many a straight man, gay sex is icky. It’s gross. It’s disgusting.

She explains…

The thing is, I find heterosexual sex to be as gross and icky as many of those who find homosexual sex to be gross and icky find that to be. In other words- the idea of a woman- any woman- having sex with a man is disturbing to the extreme. I already covered part of this in another piece I did, but it comes out flatly that I am grossed out when I see a woman and a man having sex; I feel disturbed when I see women holding hands with men; and I just find it plain out wrong when women kiss men.

Later…

None of this really gives me a rational basis for arguing that, say, heterosexual sex is wrong and should be outlawed, or that relationships between women and men should not exist. Just because I find heterosexuality to be gross or men to be horrible does not mean that I must impose my views on others, or try to force society to accept a world where women are superior to men and that lesbianism is above all other forms of sexuality. While I feel those things, that is not an argument. It is an emotional response.

Thank you, Bridgette P. LaVictoire. Read her whole explanation. The “ick factor” should not be used to deny consenting adults their right to love, sex, and marriage regardless of gender, number, or relation.

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.

Revisiting Terminology

Civil rights groups are rightly concerned about the use of “gay” as a derogatory term, such as “That’s so gay.” I agree that they are right in asking people to be more thoughtful about what impact they are having on others.

What I’ve also noticed is the use of “incestuous” when trying to convey that a relationship or subculture is not healthy. For example, “The incestuous relationship between the government and defense contractors.” I’d like to think that civil rights groups would be just as concerned about that as they are about “gay,” but I won’t hold my breath for that level of solidarity to happen soon. I’d also like to think that if civil rights groups did show that level of solidarity, people would respond well, but I know that is unlikely for the time being.

There are good incestuous relationships, but in the minds of too many, they associate the term with abuse or rape.

There isn’t the same connotation or reaction with the term “consanguineous,” who while the LGBT community can use “gay” and successfully urge people not to use the term as a negative, people in consensual incestuous relationships should stick to referring to their relationships as consanguineous.

Why Not Solidarity?

Here’s a question that touches on prejudices and solidarity as they relate to marriage equality.

How come the right to marrige fight only includes gay marriage and does not include the right for bisexuals to marry both sexes, or adult incest marriage and even more so polygamy? It obviously is not about the right to marry, so why do we lie.

I am here, fighting for full marriage equality. But it is true that there are people who only want the freedom to marry extended in a way that benefits just them or their friends. You’re right; they aren’t really fighting for the right to marry or for marriage equality, just their own freedom to marry. But there are others who fight for full marriage equality.

The question got some responses.

Mike Jones says…

Equality marriage is not about marriage equality at all. It is about promoting the gay agenda and they do not support bisexual or trans gender issues either.

The “gay agenda” - ? – You mean, like going to work, paying taxes? But even Mike can see that others are being thrown under the bus.

A polygamy according to them, should have the right to marry all that he loves and the mother of all of his children. An adult incest couple should have the right to consummate their love inmarriage, both father adn daughter and mother and son. This is all under the equality marriage banner, but they dare only raise their gay flag.

We do need solidarity. Even if someone can not tell us what "a polygamy" is.

Smooth T says…

Simply because polygamy is not our fight and neither is incest.

I see. So Martin Luther King, Jr. should have only asked for civil rights for African-Americans, not Asian-Americans or Latinos?

Incest is disgusting and it’s A FAMILY LINE THAT SHOULD NEVER BE CROSSED

Some people say that about two men having sex. You don’t have to like it to recognize that consenting adults should have their rights.

polygamy is just a patriarchal thing that puts the woman as a slave to her husband and isn’t beneficial for anyone but the man.

That would be your concept of polygyny. Full marriage equality would also allow polyandry and group marriage, and again, what consenting adults do in private should not be subject to the prejudices of others.

Alexis says…

Bisexuals *already* have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, just not the same sex.

They should have both.

Second, incestuous and polygamous marriages being denied is not a violation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. I’m not even necessarily saying that I have a problem with them being allowed, but it’s simply not a matter of Constitutional law being broken. Denying same-sexcouples the right to marry, on the other hand, *is*.

Why is that so? Merely stating that doesn’t make it true. I’m still waiting for a good reason.

Wolfie says…

Incest marriage is self-destructive and goes against how families work.

No proof is offered, just an assertion.

Nothing wrong with Polygamy, if it is regulated and everyone is treated equally.

Well at least Wolfie is open to that.

In discussion after discussion, we fail to see a good reason why the freedom to marry should be extended to some, but not all adults.

How About Some Solidarity, Perez Hilton?

Celebrity blogger Perez Hilton apparently has a problem with the Sister Wives of TV fame.

Just when you thought Sister Wives couldn't get any more disturbing, here comes the INCEST!

Star Magazine reports that polygamist and reality show stars, The Brown Family, are more about keeping things within the family than we all thought. In a shocking twist, it was revealed that Kody Brown's second wife, Janelle, was brought in as his wife shortly after she divorced her first husband - Kody's first wife's brother!

So what is the problem with that?

We'll say! This adds a whole new level of gross to the equation! Seriously, this is like incest!

"Gross?" "Disturbing"? What exactly is the problem, here? First of all, there is no consanguineous sex going on in this polygynous marriage. But even if there was, so what? Surely, Perez Hilton is aware that many people consider sex between two or more unrelated men to be gross and disturbing, and yet he apparently endorses that kind of sex and love. How does he feel when people take to the media to call his sexuality disturbing and gross?

Please, Perez Hilton, show some solidarity, and don't bully.

Gender and Number

This is all too typical…

The flaw in the logic of comparing polygamy and gay marriage is that an individual does not choose to be gay, an individual is born gay. People are not born polygamists.

Of course people are born gay. But people are not “born polygamist?” There are lot of poly people who will tell you or that they are naturally (born) poly. There are other people who are denial but haven’t stuck to celibacy or monogamy, being with many people. Some people are heterosexual, some gay. Some are poly, some monogamous.

Gender and number certainly are two different factors in the freedom to marry. Recognized polygamy has a long and rich history around the world. Marriage between people of the same sex hasn’t. So yes, there is a difference. The freedom to marry one person of the same sex is not the same as being able to marry two or more people of whatever genders. But both are essential to marriage equality. Let’s show some solidarity. The heterosexual person doesn’t truly have the freedom to marry if that person wants to marry two or more. The gay person or the bisexual person doesn’t truly have the freedom to marry if that person wants to marry two or more. This is why we need full marriage equality.

Bullying

Bullying has been a hot topic lately, as teens and younger children have been bullied to death, often because of their possible sexual orientation.

It is hard enough for adults to deal with the rejection and persecution of being out of the narrow, close-minded view of sexuality and identity. For children it can be so horrible that they literally can't take it any more, especially when people in their own family reject them because of who they are and the person or persons they love.

To any youth reading this, it does get better and it will get even better than adults have it now. The rights to sex, love, and marriage will be had by all. It is just a matter of time.

Suicide is not the answer. Gaining independence and distance from the bullies will bring a world of change.

Meanwhile, we should all stand up against bullying.

Monday is National Coming Out Day

Monday is National Coming Out Day in the US.

This has traditionally been a day on which LGBT people can feel the most support for coming out to family, friends, classmates, and coworkers. Are you ready to come out?

I also think that if you are polyamorous or consanguineous, there is no better day to come out, if that is what you are prepared to do. In some places, coming out as poly will subject you to the risk of prosecution under antibigamy laws, although in cases like that, it is usually obvious already that you are poly. The law doesn't seem to frown as much on being poly as long as you don't all actually live together, apparently. For consangs, however, there is much more risk in coming out, both socially and legally, as most states still have laws on the books that make it illegal for consenting adults to have with each other simply because they are closely related, or close enough. It is a ridiculous situation, but that's where we are for now.

However, if you are prepared to come out, I don't think there is a better time to find solidarity. And if someone comes out to you, won't you support them and show them solidarity?

Do you have a coming out story you want to share? Leave a comment sharing it.