Thursday, August 10, 2017

Myth: Sex in GSA Relationships Always Means Someone is Being Abused


Reality: It is possible for someone experiencing Genetic Sexual Attraction to abuse or be abused, to be sure, just like with any other relationship between adults.

If consenting adults experiencing GSA have sex, that is not abuse.

The claim that one can’t consent to sex with another is an unsupported assertion based on personal aversion, a personal history of abuse, ignorance, or even the absurd notion that females don’t want or enjoy sex. If an 18-year-old woman can legally consent to group sex with three male cage fighters who are strangers to her, or consent to be the mistress of a billionaire with a spouse and children, the President of the United States, or a someone who rented a room in her childhood home and was present for her entire childhood, how can we be consistent in saying that she can't consent to sex with her half-brother or sister or genetic parent she met as an adult?

In some reunion GSA situations, the consenting adults had sex before knowing of their genetic relation. How could that be abuse?

Abuse and sex are two different things.

Not all consensual relationships are good, but GSA does not necessarily make a relationship bad or abusive. Many people in these situations willingly make love or have sex.

See Myth: GSA is an Excuse for Pedophilia 

See Myth: Only Someone Who Was Abused or Neglected Experiences GSA


Read More »

Wednesday, August 9, 2017

Myth: GSA is an Excuse for Pedophilia

Reality:Since Genetic Sexual Attraction involves people who are post-pubescent, by definition it doesn't involve pedophilia.

GSA can be experienced by and towards post-pubescent minors (for example, 17-years-old where the age of consent is 18) and as such, it is possible that acting sexually in such situations breaks age of consent laws.

Reunion GSA can be experienced by anyone who is post-pubescent towards someone else who is post-pubescent, provided the sexual orientations and genders align (for example, a strictly gay man will not experience GSA for his sister) and the necessary conditions exist (close genetic relation, negligible presence from age seven into puberty). As such, middle-aged half-siblings who are reunited may experience it. A genetic parent may experience it for their genetic child, but a 45-year-old being attracted to 25-year-old isn't pedophilia.

GSA does not provide an excuse to abuse children. There is no excuse to abuse children.

See Myth: GSA Doesn't Exist or is Very Rare

See Myth: Sex in GSA Relationships Always Means Someone is Being Abused



Read More »

Monday, August 7, 2017

Cousins Changing States

This was left as a comment and it is a very important question for those of us in the US.
Can anyone offer insight on the case of 1st cousins who marry where it is legal and later move to a state where it is not. It would seem that the full faith and credit clause of the constitution would offer them protection. 
Article. IV. - Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
From what we've seen from family law attorneys online, you appear to be correct, at least with certain states. I do want to remind you that I am not a lawyer or attorney, and I recommend checking with a family law attorney in the state to which you plan to move or have moved.

There is a chart on Wikipedia that indicates that some states will not recognize any first cousin marriages from other states, while some others will not recognize them if they are that state's residents who went to another state to get married. It seems to me this has to be unconstitutional based on many precedents.

It is important to note that a handful of US states criminalize sex between (unmarried) first cousins, and yes, people have been recently prosecuted. But it appears as though if you were legally married in one state (which can include "common law marriage" after living together a certain number of years) and move to one of those criminalizing states, you'd be OK.

There is an organization called Cousin Couples that could have answers.

Anyone with personal experience in these matters or who has practiced family law is encourages to leave a comment.


Cousins, and any other consenting adults, should be free to be together, married or not, without fear of prosecution, bullying, or discrimination. This is why the US and every country needs full marriage equality and relationship rights for all adults.


Read More »

Myth: GSA Doesn't Exist or is Very Rare

Reality: We have many situations today in which people are raised apart of close genetic relatives and are later introduced to, or reunited with, those relatives.

They may have been apart due to one or more of them being the result of affairs, flings, one night stands, or egg/sperm/embryo donations, or because of adoption, divorces or breakups, migration, or incarceration.

Social networking and increased mobility bring them together.

In up to 50% of situations in which they are brought (back) together, when they are post-pubescent and the genders and sexual orientations are compatible, at least one person will experience GSA.

If you know of two heterosexual men who’ve met their heterosexual half-sisters, it is likely at least one of those four people has experienced GSA, even if they’ve never said or done anything to reveal that to you.

There are scientific studies that show that most people are attracted to people who look like them. When close genetic relatives are not raised together or by one another, the Westermarck Effect can hardly develop to override this attraction.  

Genetic Sexual Attraction exists and is common to introductions/reunions of close genetic relatives.

See Myth: Genetic Sexual Attraction is Just a Fancy Way of Saying Incest

See Myth: GSA is an Excuse for Pedophilia



Read More »

Sunday, August 6, 2017

How Marriage Equality Supports Family Values and Morality

There are people who constantly make a point of telling us their beliefs that marriage is important for our countries, that being married is good for adults and for children, that commitment is good, that unmarried sex is bad, unmarried cohabitation is bad, that being a single mother is bad, and that marriage is needed to “channel male sexuality.” They cite with worry the fact that there are fewer married households now and more children being raised outside of a home headed by married parents. These are what they say “family values” and “morality” are about. Everyone should get married and only have sex and raise children in marriage and should go to church every week and enjoy “freedom of religion.”


Let’s consider some facts, at least how the stand in the US (your country may vary.)…


  • Some people are gay, some people are lesbian, and almost all of them are going to be having sex for all of their adult lives.
  • Some people are inherently nonmonogamous, and won’t be monogamous even under the threat of losing everything in their life.
  • Some people belong to religions that promote a form of polygamy or polyamory.
  • Consensual adult sex, gay, heterosexual, or whatever, monogamous, group, or whatever, is only illegal if it is consanguinamorous (in most states) or even if it isn’t, but still falls under anti-incest laws. Legally married or not, it isn’t illegal for adults to have sex with multiple adults they and perhaps their church considers their spouses, or complete strangers, including a different person (or two) every night.
  • There are people in consanguinamorous relationships, some with children together, who would marry if they legally could.
  • It isn’t illegal for one man to get multiple women pregnant at the same time.
  • It isn’t illegal, in most states, for three or more adults to live together as spouses or sexual partners.
  • A man can have woman carry a child for him as a surrogate mother and he can raise the child by himself or with another man or men. There’s also adoption.
  • A woman can use donated sperm to get pregnant and raise a child by herself or with another woman or women. There’s also adoption.
  • There are people doing all of these things, and they’re not going to stop.

Given all of these facts, if these adults could legally marry any consenting adults, and at least some of them did as we know some would, it would mean more of the sex, cohabitation, and parenting that is going to happen anyway would happen within marriage. More of the households would be married households. Fewer children would be living with unmarried parents. More people would have the benefits of marriage.

Given these facts, wouldn’t it be better for “family values” and “morality” and “freedom of religion” to support full marriage equality?

Full marriage equality would also mean fewer marriages undertaken solely for something like immigration purposes and fewer people being unwittingly used as beards for someone who is in the closet. Polygamous marriage even makes it more likely that young children can be with a parent rather than in day care, if that is something someone is worried about. Think about it; in many places families can't live on one income, but if there are three spouses, two can earn incomes while the third is home.

If “family values” are really about helping people, and reducing unmarried sex, cohabitation, and parenting, then people who use that phrase will support full marriage equality. It not, then we’ll know they’re really most concerned with protecting privileges for heterosexual, claimed-monogamist, Christians-of-only-some-denominations.[Note: This entry was first posted on this blog several years ago. It is still relevant. Nothing written in this entry is intended to be against nonmarital relationships or sex.]

Read More »

Saturday, August 5, 2017

Cherry Iced Tea



It is sweltering hot here. Summer tends to be like that here. Sometimes I wonder if we especially feel it more because we don't have hot weather all year long! We wait for summer eagerly and then we are too hot! We are always looking for ways to cool down, which ends up being something cold to drink. I often feel that people end up drinking calories without even realizing it! All the store-bought or prepackaged drinks are laden with sugar and fat! I look for healthier, low calorie drinks to keep my family and myself cool. That's why I prefer to make the cooling beverages at home. Of course, water is the best way to stay hydrated, but sometimes, people want more than just water.





 I personally drink more of water than anything else! For those other times, I make varieties of lassi, smoothie, lemonade, daiquiri etc. This summer, I seem to be in the mood for iced tea! I have been making a lot of fruity iced teas! For some reason, I used to think making fruity iced tea was a chore! But believe it or not, it actually isn't quite so time-consuming and is quite easy! The only time consuming part is making the fruit syrup. The rest is a breeze. My way of combating this issue is by making the syrup when I am cooking other stuff in the kitchen or doing chores in the kitchen. You can make the syrup and keep it handy in the refrigerator to make the tea anytime you wish! The inspiration for my recipe is this recipe that I came across..





Make this tea and keep it in the refrigerator. You and your guests will both be happy!




Servings: 6-8


Prep time: 10 minsCook time: 30 minsTotal time: 40 mins


Ingredients:


For the syrup:
Cherries: 2 cups, pitted
Sugar: 2 cups
Water: 4 cups
Lemon zest: from 1 small lemon  ( optional)

For the tea:
Tea bags: 3-4 ( I used Lipton teabags)
Water: 500ml ( may need more for the pitcher).
Mint leaves: for garnish, 1-2 leaves per glass ( optional)
Ice cubes: 2 trays ( may need more depending on the size of the ice)


Method:


For the syrup:


Take the pitted cherries, sugar, lemon zest and water in a saucepan. Bring this to a boil. Reduce the flame and cook it for 15-20 mins or until the cherries have softened. Using a potato masher, mash the cherries as much as possible. Continue boiling for another 10-15 mins mashing the cherries in between.

Now strain it using a strainer. Let it cool. Pour the strained syrup into a pitcher or in a jar if you plan to make the tea at a later time.

For the tea:

While the syrup is cooking, you can prepare the tea. To do this, boil 500 ml water in a pot. Once the water comes to boil, add 3-4 tea bags depending on how strong you want your tea. Let it steep for 4-5 mins. Turn off the flame. Cover and keep aside to cool down with the tea bags in it.

Serving the tea:

Add both the tea and the syrup into the serving pitcher. Add 1 tray of ice to it. Garnish with mint leaves. Check for the sweetness. You can add sugar /honey /sweetener if you wish for more sweetness.

Take serving glasses, fill it with ice cubes until half-way. Pour the tea on top of the ice cubes to fill it the rest of the way.




Serve!



Enjoy! I am bringing this to  my dear friend Angie's Fiesta Friday#183. If you haven't been to her fiestas, you are truly missing something!! Her 
cohosts this week are Sarah @ Sarah’s Little Kitchen and Shinta @ Caramel Tinted Life.


Cooking made easy:


You can double the ingredients and make a bigger batch of syrup and keep it in the refrigerator. It stays good for 7-10 days.
The tea when made stays fresh for 3-4 days.

Tip for healthy living:


Homemade beverages are much better than store-bought ones as not only the amount of sugar in them can be controlled but there are no additives/preservatives in them.

Food for thought:

When mind is weak, the situation is a problem; when mind is balanced, the situation is a challenge and when the mind is strong, the situation is an opportunity. Unknown


Read More »

Friday, August 4, 2017

Myth: Genetic Sexual Attraction is Just a Fancy Way of Saying Incest

Reality: First of all, Genetic Attraction or Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA) describes an attraction, not an action, and incest is an action. So GSA is not an synonym for incest.

Not all GSA situations involve sex. However, even when it does involve sex, by definition the people involved in reunion GSA were not raised together or by one another, so were not socialized and bonded as family while growing up.

It might be classified as incest in law and biologically, but it isn’t incestuous socially.

Reunion GSA describes a specific experience that does not involve people who have been socialized as family; sex may or may not be involved.

Consider a hypothetical situation.

See Myth: GSA Doesn't Exist or is Very Rare

Read More »

Teen brains and driving: The one 'request' all parents should ask of P-platers

As the eldest of three sons, I was the first to get my driver's licence. After the initial shock that I actually passed my driving test the first time (I am a terrible driver - my father says I don't drive a car, I aim it!), Dad sat my brothers and I down and shared with us his one rule when it came to driving, i.e., he never wanted for one of us to be behind the wheel and the other two to be passengers in the car. His explanation was simple - young drivers aren't experienced and accidents happen, to have one of his sons in a car crash would be bad enough, to have all three in that vehicle would be devastating.

Over 4 decades later I cannot think of a time when the three of us have ever been in a car together with one of us driving! For some reason the discussion we had all  those years ago just stuck!

This rule certainly did not come about as a result of my Dad's extensive knowledge of research in the area (in fact, I doubt whether any really existed back then), it simply came out of his love for his kids and awareness that young drivers are more likely to make mistakes. In recent years we have seen so much research conducted in this area and when you look at what we know now my Dad was away ahead of his time!

When you look at the Australian statistics around young drivers, and particularly P-platers, it is no surprise that parents are concerned ...
  • 45% of all young injury deaths are due to road traffic crashes
  • almost half of all hospitalisations of young people are drivers, another quarter are passengers
  • young drivers (17-25 years) represent one-quarter of road deaths, but are only 10-15% of the licensed driver population
  • a 17-year-old with a P1 licence is 4 times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than a driver over 26 years
Most importantly, studies have now identified passengers and number of passengers as key factors associated with increased fatal crash risk for young drivers, with one US study's (Chen et al, 2000) results bound to cause great concern for any parent of a P-plater. As shown in the infographic above, compared to driving with no passengers, a 16- or 17-year-old driver's risk of death per mile:
  • increases 44% when carrying one passenger younger than 21
  • doubles (increases 102%) when carrying two passengers younger than 21
  • quadruples (rising 339%) when carrying three or more passengers younger than 21
Interestingly, having an older person in the car seems to have the reverse effect, decreasing the risk of death by 62 per cent when passengers aged 35 or older are present.

These findings mirror those tragic stories of groups of Australian teens being killed in car crashes involving P-platers. Too often these involve three or four young people being in the car when the accident happened. As a result of growing research, as well as in response to the deaths that have occurred, we have seen some countries, including Australia, impose restrictions on the number of peer passengers young drivers are permitted.

I can remember when NSW first introduced legislation limiting the number of passengers P-platers were allowed to have in their car. I fought it hard! In my dealings with young drivers, particularly around drink driving, I have always heavily promoted the concept of the 'designated driver' and believed then (and still do) that the vast majority of teens would never even consider driving home from a party after drinking. It is important to acknowledge that some studies have found that having passengers in a car can have positive effects on drivers, although these are reduced the younger they are. Passengers can help keep drivers alert, help them navigate, operate the radio or other communication devices such as mobile phones and even take over driving when necessary. Limiting the number of passengers P-platers were allowed to transport seemed incredibly unfair to me ... I then attended a conference in Geneva and heard about some research that changed everything ...

A Dutch study found that the older a driver gets their driving licence, the lower the initial risk (Vlakvled, 2004). You could have as many lessons as you wanted but the earlier you started driving, the more likely you were to have a crash. If you started driving after 21, with fewer lessons, your risk of a crash dropped and further reduced the older you got. There just seemed to be something about young drivers that put them more at risk. Experience certainly mattered (and that is why we are seeing many jurisdictions continue to increase the number of hours learner drivers must complete before getting their licence), with crash rates over time being lowest for those who got their licence at age 18 and highest for drivers licensed at ages 30–40 (i.e., if you got your licence early you were less likely to have a crash later in life), but why was there this initial 'high risk' time?

There is now growing evidence to suggest that this could be due to brain development. Recent research has found that between the ages of 18-19 and 21-22 there is a 10 per cent reduction in accident rates, even when driving experience is taken into account. Gender also appears to be a factor, with three times as many males being involved in crashes. When you look at this data and match it to what we know about adolescent brain development, it clearly matches up ...

We now know that the brain doesn't finish developing as early as we once thought, with females fully developed at around 21-22 years and males much later (at around 25-26 years at the earliest). When you look at the crash data, it's at that age when you start seeing rates of crashes and casualties/fatalities significantly decrease. Yes, they're becoming more experienced drivers but they're also getting a fully-developed brain.

We know that several parts of the brain are used when driving. These include:
  • frontal lobe – dealing with judgement and decision making 
  • parietal lobe – managing information from all the senses
  • occipital lobe - the visual cortex, interpreting visual information the driver receives
  • temporal lobe – dealing with sounds heard by the driver
  • cerebellum and other areas outside the cortex – controls muscle movement and balance
We know that the brain develops in a back to front pattern, with the frontal lobe the last to 'complete'. With that in mind, one recent study attempted to find out the impact of this development, particularly the prefrontal cortex (PFC), had on driving (Foy et al, 2016). The results were not necessarily surprising but incredibly important. They found that younger drivers had reduced PFC activity compared to older drivers and concluded that "the reduced activation in younger drivers may be related to prefrontal maturation which could contribute to the increased crash risk seen in this population."

What I found particularly interesting and important when it comes to messages for parents of P-platers is that this 'increased crash risk' was not necessarily due to less impulse control but insufficient perception and attention leading to driver error – i.e., driving had not yet become an "automatic task". Most of us as adults can relate to driving on 'auto-pilot' at some time or another, i.e., that time when you're driving along and all of a sudden realize that you're in the next suburb and you can't quite remember those three sets of traffic lights you must have gone through. As experienced drivers with fully-developed brains, we are able to drive on 'auto-pilot' and still react to sudden or unexpected events ... young drivers are unable to do this ...
I think we tend to believe that the multiple deaths that occur on the roads with P-platers behind the wheel are simply the result of passengers urging the driver to take greater risks, or being distracted by talking, movement or some other activity. Certainly, research has shown that 6 out of 10 young driver crashes are due to distraction of some kind, but it is now becoming more evident that brain development may also be playing a role in these tragic events. It doesn't necessarily have to be a group of 'lads' in a car that leads to an accident, having any same-age peers (no matter how responsible they may be) increases the risk of a crash because a P-plater does not have a fully-developed brain and driving has not yet become 'automatic' ...
By the time your son or daughter starts driving they are well and truly becoming young adults. If they are living in your home, they should still abide by your rules, but when it comes to driving, there is very little you can do to control what they do behind the wheel of a car once they leave your driveway. I reckon my Dad got it right, at least to some degree - he was thinking of his family and ensuring that if something went wrong he didn't lose all of us, what we know now is a little more complex ... For parents of P-platers I would recommend that you try to get them to agree to just one simple request when they start driving and that is as follows:
"Whenever possible, never drive with anymore than one passenger whilst on your P-plates"
Now I realize that this could be a hard-ask but it's certainly worth a try. When you look at the figures (and you can try showing them but realistically they're at an age where they just don't think it will happen to them!), trying to push them in this direction is well worth the effort. The vast majority of P-platers wouldn't even consider drink driving (their parents are more likely to do that than they are!) but they think nothing of having a couple of friends in the car and the evidence is clear that this is a significant risk ...

References
Chen, L., Baker, S., Braver, E., & Li, G. (2000). Carrying passengers as a risk factor for crashes fatal to 16- and 17-year-old drivers. JAMA 283, 1578-1582.
Foy, H.J., Runham, P. & Chapman, P. (2016). Prefrontal cortex activation and young driver behaviour: A fNIRS study. PLoS ONE 11
Vlakveld, W.P. (2004). New policy proposals for novice drivers in the Netherlands. Behavioural Research in Road Safety: Fourteenth Seminar, 194–204. 


Read More »

Check Out the Consanguinamory Wiki

Read More »