Saturday, February 10, 2018

Frequently Asked Question: Why Do Polyamorists Get Married?


The question is asked as though the person asking assumes that actual monogamy is a requirement for marriage. It isn’t in most places, even though current marriage laws will only allow monogamy in the legal sense.

For the purpose of this question and answer, I will include any form of honest nonmonogamy, or any label applied, such as open relationship, open marriage, swinging, swapping, polyamory, polyfidelity and polygamy.

Why do swingers get married?

Why do people in open relationships get married?

Why do polyamorous people get married?

The short answer is: For the same reason most other people get married. They want to get married, they think it is the best thing to do at that time in life, or they’re pressured.



There are many reasons to get married, and as I noted, one doesn’t actually need to be monogamous to get married, unless one wants to be ethical and married to someone who needs and demands monogamy. People get married for love, for attraction, for companionship, to solemnize or make official their relationship, for religious reasons, to make a public statement, for sex, for children, for friendship, for benefits, for insurance, to pool resources, to co-parent, for career, for money, as a form of commitment, to apply a legal structure to their relationship, and for other reasons I’m probably forgetting. Nonmonogamists who marry do so for one or more of these reasons, just like anyone else.

Some people cite the marriage vow of "forsaking all others." But that is just ONE vow, not one that all people marrying make. The vow can also mean different things to different marriages.

Some nonmonogamists decline to marry for various reasons. Some, like some monogamists, have decided to decline until everyone can get married. Some decline to marry until everyone in their polycule can marry. Some can’t have a legal marriage for their polycule until there is full marriage equality.

The question can also be asked of monogamists: Why do you get married? Not only is actual monogamy not a requirement, in many places, of our restrictive marriage laws, but one can be monogamous without being married.


Read More »

Friday, February 9, 2018

The difference between having a 'good time' and ending up on life-support could be just one drink: If you think your teen may be drinking alcohol, have the conversation

About 18 months ago you may remember quite a remarkable story out of the US that got a great deal of coverage right across the world. Hannah Lottritz, a 21-year-old from Nevada, uploaded a photograph of herself on life-support together with a blog entry titled 'Drinking Responsibly' in an effort to warn others about the risks associated with drinking to excess. The article and the photograph went viral with both being picked up by news agencies across the world. The reason behind her decision to share this disturbing image is clearly explained in the opening paragraph of the piece ...

"I am writing this because I didn’t realize the importance of drinking responsibly until I was waking up from a coma, and I don't want anyone to go through what my family and I went through. I ask that you share this with your friends, family or anyone who may benefit from reading this. If I can help just one person by sharing my experience, then I will be absolutely ecstatic."

Sadly, I meet many young people who have had similar experiences - most who are totally mortified about what happened and many completely mystified by how it happened. As I say to young people, I've never met someone who wanted to end up in an emergency department - every single one of them made a silly mistake, some believing that they drank exactly the same amount as they had done on other occasions and others having just one or two more than usual. It sounds 'pat' but it's true - the difference between having a 'good time' and finding yourself on life-support in hospital could be just one drink ...

Hannah's story is not unusual. She had gone to a music festival and made the mistake of trying to play 'catch-up' with her friends in regards to alcohol. She then drifted away from the people she knew and ended up with another group, who she then promised she could "outdrink". This included skolling whiskey straight from the bottle. From then on she has no memory of what happened and had to rely on friends to fill in the gaps. Shortly after skolling the whiskey, she collapsed and stopped breathing. She was taken to the event's medical tent, intubated and flown to hospital. Her parents were contacted by police and told that she was in a critical condition, suffering from acute respiratory failure and acute alcohol intoxication.  As she says in her article:

"My blood alcohol concentration was .41 when I arrived at the hospital, five times over the legal limit. The doctors thought I was brain dead because I was completely unresponsive. My pupils were sluggishly reactive, I had no corneal reflex and I wasn't responding to verbal or painful stimuli"

What has really upset me in the last year or so is the number of young people who actually wear the fact that they have been taken to hospital like a 'badge of honour'. Somehow they think it is 'cool' to have this experience, with some actually bragging about apparently having their stomachs' pumped. When I see this behaviour I take great joy in letting people know that pumping the stomach is rarely, if ever, used for someone suffering from alcohol poisoning. There's a number of reasons for this, including the fact that it is quite labour-intensive and requires more staff than is normally on hand in an emergency department, but most importantly it is a process that is considered more dangerous than beneficial in most cases. Now to be honest I certainly have heard of doctors and nurses telling young people that their stomach had to be pumped - but according to one nurse I know, this is often done for dramatic effect more than anything!

Of course, their bravado and 'big talk' could simply be due to embarrassment but nevertheless we need to make sure that young people are aware that there is nothing glamorous about ending up in hospital on life-support.
Usually the hospital staff have to cut off the patient's clothing, if they haven't wet or messed themselves, they have vomited and need to be cleaned up and put into a hospital gown. They are then intubated - this is where a small tube is inserted through the mouth or nose, then threaded through the oesophagus and into the stomach. This tube is placed on suction, decompressing the stomach which helps reduce the risk of vomiting. The person is also put on an IV drip to help with hydration. As you can imagine this is all extremely unpleasant and certainly not glamorous.
As Hannah writes in her article ...
"I finally woke up about 24 hours after I arrived at the hospital. I had a tube down my throat and my hands were restrained so I couldn't pull it out. I was unable to talk with the tube down my throat, making it hard to tell my parents and the nurses that it was extremely uncomfortable. I had to pass a respiratory test to prove I could breathe on my own before they removed it. I failed the first respiratory test I took, and I had to wait several hours to take another test." 
Last year I received an email from a young woman named Georgia who found herself in a similar situation. She had got extremely drunk, became unconscious and thankfully due to a couple of her quick-thinking friends, an ambulance was called and she was rushed to hospital. She wanted to share her story, telling me that I could use it in my school talks, but it was what she wrote right at the end of the message that really had an impact on me.

"I drank far too much and I will never forgive myself for my stupid decisions that night. But it is my friends and, most importantly, my Mum and Dad that I feel really bad about. I don't have any memories about the really bad stuff. I blacked out well before I was taken to hospital but it was my friends who had to try to look after me at the party who I put into such a terrible position who had to deal with the situation. My poor parents had to sit my hospital bed for almost 24 hours and be told that I may not make it through the night. I just feel so selfish ..."

As I wrote back to Georgia, it is important that she forgives herself for her error of judgment. She made a mistake, she needs to apologise to those people she feels she needs to say sorry to and then brush herself off and get on with life. Beating yourself up for mistakes like this gets you nowhere. Waking up in a hospital room with tubes down your throat and your parents standing over the top of you in tears must be devastating though ... it's a tough thing to recover from.

So when it comes to alcohol poisoning and the risk of ending up in hospital, what should a parent be saying to their teen in an effort to keep them protected or at the very least, aware of the dangers? Here are just a couple of key points that could be raised:
  • if you're going to drink, make sure you eat something beforehand. Young people need to eat a 'fistful of food' before they go out - that's about the size of their empty stomach. That's enough to keep you protected to some degree, slowing down absorption but not interfering with the actual alcohol experience. Something 'carbohydrate-heavy' like a small bowl of pasta or rice, even a sandwich or burger is best ...
  • it can't sober you up but making sure that water is a part of every alcohol experience your teen has is extremely important. Make sure the first drink they drink is a glass of water (it prepares them for the dehydrating effect of alcohol and also fills them up a little so they are less likely to gulp that first bottle or can down as fast) and try to get them to get into the habit of having another glass between each alcoholic drink. Once again, we usually tell young people this is all about rehydrating but realistically it's most probably more important in that it can help slow their drinking down just a little ...
  • remember that alcohol is like any other drug, it can affect you differently every time you drink it. You could have exactly the same amount of alcohol on two different occasions and have completely different experiences. So many people find this hard to believe and when something does go amiss are convinced that it couldn't be the alcohol that caused the problem. Make sure your teen gets this message early - just because they had a 'good time' when they had a couple of shots last week does not mean it'll necessarily be the same this week!
  • avoid drinking games and shots. Unfortunately, for some young (and even not so young) people this is just part of their alcohol experience and there's little we're going to be able to do to change that. That said, make your views clear on this kind of drinking behaviour - we know that your opinion can actually make a difference
  • when it comes to other people drinking, encourage them to intervene when necessary. People just don't suddenly become drunk and lose consciousness - there will be warning signs. This is a gradual process for most people. If you see a friend who you think is getting into trouble, step in and say something. It's not even about telling them not to drink, saying something as simple as "slow down" could make all the difference. Try to get them away from the alcohol by suggesting you go for a walk together, send them a text to distract them or get others to help you - don't let it get to the stage of having to call an ambulance if you can possibly help it
  • most importantly, make sure they know they have your total support should something ever go wrong and they need to call for help. Many young people don't call 000 because they're frightened their parents may find out - that's so sad and must be devastating for parents to hear. Nobody ever wants their child to be put into a situation where they need to call an ambulance but every parents wants to know that if they were, they'd do it without hesitation!
Having a conversation about alcohol and all the things that can go wrong is never going to be easy. Acknowledging that your teen may be drinking, without necessarily condoning the behaviour, can be extremely difficult but it is necessary. That one conversation could prevent the one person you love most in the world from ending up being transported to hospital and that's worth all the discomfort in the world ...


Read More »

Thursday, February 8, 2018

What's the drug that kills more people than any other?


What's the drug that kills more people than any other? We had a debate in class and we couldn't agree on which one it was. I think it's tobacco but others thought it was illegal drugs like ice and heroin.

Well, you were right - across the world, tobacco kills more people than any other drug. In countries like Australia, alcohol is the second largest cause of drug-related deaths, followed by prescription medications and illicit drugs.

Before we look at the actual numbers, it is important to understand what we mean by a 'drug death'.

In Australia, deaths are considered 'drug-induced' if directly attributable to drug use. For example, when an alcohol or drug overdose occurs. Drugs can also contribute to 'drug-related deaths' as a result factors such as violence, driving while drunk or intoxicated or when an underlying health condition exists. For example, a stimulant drug may cause death in a vulnerable individual with an undiagnosed heart problem.

It is often the case that a death occurs as a result of the combined effect of alcohol and illicit drugs making it difficult to attribute the death to one specific substance. Sometimes deaths may occur as a result of ill health caused by alcohol or drug use many years ago and there are instances when doctors may not record drugs on a death certificate even where drugs might be involved. Despite these difficulties there are estimates of the number of deaths associated with different tobacco, alcohol and drugs.

When you look at the statistics, smoking is by far the leading cause of preventable death. Worldwide, tobacco use causes nearly 6 million deaths per year, and current trends show that tobacco use will cause more than 8 million deaths annually by 2030. Around 15,000 people die every year in Australia due to smoking – that's about 40 each day!

According to the World Health Organisation, in 2012, there were around 3.3 million deaths attributable to alcohol consumption. That accounts for around one in 20 of all global deaths. The number of Australians that die due to alcohol can vary each year from between 3,500 up to more than 5,000. That means up to 15 alcohol-related deaths per day.

There are many prescription drugs that can cause death and in recent years it is the painkillers such as oxycodone, morphine and codeine and benzodiazepines, a range of drugs used to treat anxiety or sleep problems, which lead to many accidental and intentional fatal overdoses. Using drugs in combination (or 'polydrug' use) is often the cause of death. For example, the latest statistics show that in 2016 over 96% of benzodiazepine deaths in Australia involved other drugs including alcohol.

In 2014, there were an estimated 207,400 illicit drug-related deaths worldwide. Overdose deaths account for almost half of these worldwide, and in most cases the drugs involved were opioids (i.e., drugs like heroin). According to the latest Australian statistics, in 2016 the total number of prescription and illicit drug-related deaths was 1,808 – the highest number in 20 years. Stimulant drugs including methamphetamine (speed or ice) and MDMA (ecstasy), as well as heroin accounted for 724 of these deaths.

Using any drug involves risk. Using alcohol, prescribed or illicit drugs at the same time massively increases the risk of illness and death.


Read More »

Wednesday, February 7, 2018

Consanguinamory and Family Dynamics

Jane takes a look at the myth that consanguinamory ruins family dynamics. Click through to go to her blog.

Read More »

Consanguinamoroflexible

Another one of Jane's recent blog entries is about flexibility in sexuality, especially in how it relates to consanguinamory. Go read it here. What we've seen is some people are consanguinamorous, some consang-flexible, some "bisang" and so on.

Read More »

Monday, February 5, 2018

Virginia Isn't For Lovers Because They Still Prosecute Them

We have yet more proof that people are intensely fascinated by consanguinamory. But of course the bigots will still pretend this is so extreme and never happens. It's another apparent case of reunion Genetic Sexual Attraction that is tying up public resources because of ridiculous laws against adults having sex with each other. From wowktv.com...
A North Carolina man and his biological daughter face incest charges after warrants say they had a sexual relationship and planned to marry.
Oh! The horror! People wanting to... get married!
Katie Rose Pladl was born in January 1998 to Steven Walter Pladl and her mother and then legally adopted out of state.
When Katie Pladl turned 18, she used social media to reach out to her biological parents, according to warrants.
So he was raised to adulthood by another family. I know logic isn't really something bigots grasp, so let's be perfectly clear: SHE WAS AND IS AN ADULT. And there was no grooming involved.


After making contact with them, she moved to their home just west of Richmond, Virginia, in August 2016 and began to live with her biological parents and their two other children.
Steven Pladl and his wife legally separated in November 2016 and the wife moved out, warrants say.
The wife told authorities that Steven Pladl would sleep on the floor of Katie’s room in the month before she moved out.
Well if there is something wrong with that, then I sure hope nobody ever goes camping. What do people think happened throughout most of human history, with large families living in one room?
On May 23, 2017, Steven Pladl’s wife read in the journal of one of her children that Katie was pregnant and Steven Pladl was the father.
And...? Women who are 18, 19, or 20 get pregnant all of the time. The ex is a jealous rat.
Warrants say Steven Pladl told his other children to call Katie Pladl their step-mom.
So? If she was functioning to them more like a mother than a sibling, that makes sense. Those kids were not raised with her.
Warrants also say the wife called Steven Pladl and asked him if he had impregnated their adult biological daughter. Steven Pladl told his wife he was the father of Katie’s child and that they planned to marry.
Until the laws are changed, people in his position should never admit to anyone but an ally what is going on. For the most part, keep that closet door closed.
On May 31, 2017, the Henrico County Child Advocacy Center interviewed the Pladl’s two other children, who told the Center that they had been told Steven was the father of Katie’s baby.
Why is it any of the Center's business?!? Notice that there is nothing here indicating ANY child abuse.
At some point after May 31, 2017, Katie and Steven Pladl moved to Wake County.
On Nov. 29, 2017, Henrico County police issued warrants for the arrest of Katie and Steven Pladl.
Why? That's a waste of public resources.
The Pladls were located at a home on Earlston Court in the city limits of Knightdale and arrested on Jan. 27.
What's the point of essentially giving their address? So bigots can do hate crimes against them???
A baby boy was with the Pladls when Knightdale police officers found them. Warrants say that baby was born in September 2017.
Notice there is no indication anything is wrong with the baby. Except now the baby's parents are being persecuted by their own government. What's more disruptive to a child? Having parents who are in love with each other or being ripped away from their parents due to prejudice? Hmmmm.
Both Steve and Katie Pladl are being held at the Wake County Detention Center pending extradition to Virginia.
They are both charged with incest with adult, adultery, contributing to delinquency.

Both were each issued a $1 million bond.


Steven Pladl has since been released on bond but Katie remains in jail, court records show.
There's no victim, other than victims the arrests and prosecution are creating. This is outrageous. Nobody was being hurt.

We have no way of knowing what Steven's marriage was like before their genetic a daughter moved in. We don't know if it was open at all, or if it was dead, or what the marriage was like. What we do know is that Steven and Katie are in love and they're not hurting anyone. Prosecuting them is a travesty.

The story has been reported at foxnews...


The ex-wife told Richmond’s WTVR-TV that her former husband and Katie married in Maryland and then moved to North Carolina.

She believes her ex-husband brainwashed and manipulated Katie, the station reported.
If she really believes that, it is because she had no understanding of GSA. Having adopted out a child, it's sad that nobody educated her on it.
“This is a pretty unique set of facts I would say,” the station’s legal analyst Todd Stone said.
What? This is hardly unique, as even a basic search of legal cases would reveal.

Moving from one state to another can help in these relationships, but since there was an apparently jealous ex involved, it wasn't enough.

While it is outrageous that these two consenting adults would be prosecuted, at least we know that the majority of consanguinamorous relationships are never broken up by law enforcement. There is no good reason to deny consenting adults their right to marry, and we must keep moving towards full marriage equality so that we make it happen sooner rather than later. Stop with the hate and get on the right side of history
! Has Virginia learned nothing since prosecuting Loving?


Read More »

Sunday, February 4, 2018

Unhealthy lifestyle linked to nearly half of US cancer deaths

Read More »

Decriminalizing Genetic Sexual Attraction

This is necessarily a long essay, and I apologize, but I’ve heard so many arguments before that I want to deal with them preemptively.

In many places, certain acts of affection between close genetic relatives are still a crime, regardless of all involved being consenting adults, regardless of their backgrounds. This includes when the adults have experienced Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA).

The fact is there are people who are happy together, in every way, who were brought together through GSA. The main problem in the relationship is the discrimination, often codified in laws that include the possibility of criminal prosecution, against their relationship. There are other people who are experiencing GSA who, for any number of reasons, do not want their relationship to become sexual, or remain sexual if it has already become sexual. Both of these groups, and the other people who love them and depend on them, would benefit from decriminalization.

The first group would be free to live their lives.

The second group would be more able find effective help and support.



There is no reason to keep laws against any affection between consenting adults in these cases that is consistently applied elsewhere. For example, in the USA, we have firmly established the legal concepts that adults have the freedom of association and a right to privacy that extends to consensual sex and that protects them from prosecution, and we have firmly established as a social concept that consenting adults should be allowed to do with each other what they want. It is just taking some time for these to be consistently applied.

A Good Reason for Criminalization?

Let’s look at the reasons people give for making criminals out of consenting adults who are experiencing GSA by denying them the freedom to be together…

1. “It is disgusting.” Also known as the “ick” or “eww” factor, this explains why the person using the argument wouldn’t want to do it, but their own personal disgust is not a justification for preventing other people from doing something those other people want to do. We all have seen relationships that disgust us, but it is up to the adult involved, not anyone else.

2. “Not a lot of people want to do it” or “I don’t want to do it.” The second one is much like #1 above, and many people who are in, or have been in, GSA relationships never thought they would want to do something like this before they experienced it for themselves. The first is not a justification for keeping something illegal. If anything, it is a reason laws against these relationships are wasteful and unnecessary.

3. “It goes against tradition.” So did the abolition of slavery. A tradition of inequality is not a justification for continuing to deny equality.

4. “My religion is against it.” We should all have the freedom of religion and in places like the US, we have separation of church and state, so this can’t be a justification for keeping laws against GSA, only a reason why one person would not feel free to be affectionate that way.

5. “It's not natural." Actually, yes, it is. GSA is a normal, natural reaction to the circumstances (see references below). But even if it wasn't, people are allowed artificial things all of the time, like using smart phones.

6. “What’s next?” “Where do we draw the line?” Freedom for consenting adults. Who has a problem with that?

7. “These relationships are abusive.” These types of relationships are not inherently abusive. Abusive people are the cause of abuse. We have several examples showing that outlawing consensual behavior correlates to an increase in problems as people try to avoid law enforcement and other authorities. Legalizing these relationships will most certainly reduce abuse, as abuse victims can go to the authorities with much less fear. So the solution isn’t the status quo, it is in decriminalizing such relationships and prosecuting abusers. Victims will be much more forthcoming.

8. “It ruins, confuses, or distorts family relationships.” Ever notice how people who use this argument against GSA relationships almost never say the same thing about any other relationship? It is okay for say, siblings, to be coworkers, business partners, roommates, lender and borrower, best friends, on and on… but never lovers. Why the inconsistency? They don’t say it about any number of additional relationship dimensions relatives might have with each other, or at least this objection is not enshrined in law, as it is with laws criminalizing GSA sex. It is as if these people think sex is a bad thing and about doing bad things to the other person(s). Maybe they are doing it wrong?

Most people experiencing GSA already have sociological families. The genetic sibling, child, or parent with whom they have been reunited or to whom they have been introduced is an addition to their life, not someone who is dropping or conflicting with an existing sociological role. Some people in these relationships see the affection as a form of compensation for what was lost and can never be regained.

9. “There is a power differential.” This applies least of all to siblings close in age, but even where the power differential exists, it is not a justification for making criminals out of lovers. There is a power differential in just about any relationship, sometimes an enormous power differential. One person is more emotionally needy than another. One earns more than the other. One is more educated than another. One has more friends and family than another. One has more life experience than another. On and on it goes. To question if consent is truly possible in these cases is insulting and demeaning. There are sober, functional, healthy adults who consent to sex with an older relative. It shouldn’t be illegal or questioned, unless you would do the same to any intergenerational relationship between adults.

10. “There are so many people outside of your family. Go have sex with one of them, instead.” This is usually said out of ignorance of what GSA is. There is a relationship going on that can’t be duplicated with anyone else, and if sex is involved, it is just one aspect of a powerful whole. Consenting adults should free to make their own decisions about their relationships, regardless of the prejudices of others. There are plenty of people within one’s own race, too, but that is no reason to ban interracial relationships.

11. “This will hurt children.” This is usually meant one of four ways:

   a) “Children you have together will have two heads.” This is one reason why some lovers have decided not to have children together. But does it hold up as a reason for criminalizing GSA sex? No. 1) As I just said, many lovers have decided not to have children together, and would keep that decision regardless of law. Most people do not believe sex is only for reproduction. Most sex does not result in a birth, and there are gay and lesbian GSA relationships, and other GSA relationships where pregnancy is not even a possible result of sex. 2) We don’t prevent other people from having sex or deny them their reproductive rights based on increased odds of passing along a genetic problem or inherited disease. 3) Most births to consanguineous parents do not produce children with significant birth defects. Unless someone is willing to deny reproductive rights and medical privacy to others and force everyone to take genetic tests and bar carriers and the congenitally disabled and women over 35 from having children, then equal protection principles prevent this from being a justification for criminalizing GSA. Anyone concerned about these things should have genetic testing and counseling. People who are not close relatives can pass along health problems, too.

   b) “The children will find out their parents are related, and will be taunted.” First, see above. Secondly, what the children will know is that their parents love each other, and love them, and that is what is important to a child. Finally, people used to say this about interracial and gay parents. The biggest problem appears to the rudely outspoken bigotry of others. Don’t want the kids to be taunted? Then don’t taunt them.

   c) “It will make it easier for children to be groomed for sex or otherwise abused.” GSA specifically involves people who were not raised together or by each other, so grooming doesn’t really apply with GSA. But will decriminalizing GSA make it easier for custodial guardians and parents to abuse children? The law could be written in such a way as to only decriminalize GSA and not apply to guardians/custodial parents, but there are places, such as Rhode Island and various countries in the world, where consensual sexual affection between close adult relatives is legal, GSA or not. Where is the proof that child abuse increased in those places as a result? Consensual sex and abuse are two different things. There are people abusing their own children RIGHT NOW in places where consensual adult incest is illegal. Meanwhile, does anyone really think that allowing consenting adults to have their love lives means more adults will prey on children? Society already disapproves of preying on children, and it still happens, sadly. Many things legal for adults are not legal for children, such as joining the military, getting married, purchasing prescription medication, driving automobiles on public roads, buying adult media, working in coal mines, etc. Not every law or norm or sensitivity can cater to young children.

   d) “This will break up the home of children.” This is applied to GSA situations involving people who have existing relationships that are threatened by GSA, and those relationships involve children. Personally, I think children would rather their parents not split up unless one is abusive, and I do not think it is OK to violate existing vows to others. This is definitely an important consideration for someone experiencing GSA. But… it is their consideration, not for strangers to try to decide for them in law. We do not prevent people from breaking up or divorcing even if they have children. It is perfectly legal, or any reason. In most places, laws against adultery are no longer applicable. A parent can have sex with a complete stranger every night, or divorce and remarry multiple times; it is all legal, even if it is often a bad idea.

Conclusion

As we can see, there isn’t a compelling reason for the continued criminalization of GSA. It will make laws more consistent and people will be better off if GSA is decriminalized. In many places, is legal for complete strangers to have group sex, with different people every night if they’d like, but not legal for two people who have an ongoing relationship and love each other to, say, have oral sex, simply because they are close genetic relatives. Does that make sense?

GSA is real and is a common, normal response to the circumstances involved, which are often circumstances nobody experiencing the GSA can be blamed for creating. GSA is not an indication that anything is wrong with the people involved. It is not wrong to have these feelings. I also argue that in many cases, it is not wrong to act on such feelings, that there is no good reason why adults in these cases who are not violating existing vows to others, who are right for each other, should feel a need to refrain from being together in whatever way they want. Even if and when wrong, that doesn’t mean it should be criminal.

Has acting sexually on GSA ruined the lives of some people? Like all sexual relationships, the answer is yes, for some it has. Some people are not right for each other, even if they are strongly attracted to each other, and some people are abusive (sometimes that is a reason for the separation circumstances to begin with). Some people aren’t free to be together. But that is no reason to categorically condemn and criminalize all GSA sex.

It is a waste of precious resources to keep GSA criminalized; it is also harming people.

For those brought together through GSA who are enjoying their relationships in every way, nothing else compares. They should be free to share their lives with each other, if that is what they want, and they should not be prosecuted, bullied, or discriminated against.

Read More »

When You're Consanguinamorous But Single

Some people are consanguinamorous as an orientation, meaning they're primarily attracted to close relatives, much more than any attraction to others. Unfortunately, not everyone who has such an orientation is in a relationship. How does someone deal with this? Jane posted something to her blog exploring this.

Read More »