Tuesday, August 22, 2017

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 »

Monday, August 21, 2017

Jane Returns to Nothing Off Limits

Our good friend Jane has returned to "Nothing Off Limits." 


It is so nice to have some good media representation.


Read More »

Sunday, August 20, 2017

Myth: People Who Act on GSA Won’t Be Able to Have Normal Lives


Reality: The only hindrance to having a “normal life” for those who continue together in a Genetic Sexual Attraction relationship is the bigotry of others.

Some who’ve been brought together through GSA lead perfectly "normal," even unusually good lives. This is more likely to be possible with the support of friends and family and will be even more likely with decriminalization of GSA and the arrival of full marriage equality.

Until then, many people in consanguinamorous relationships are somewhat closeted. There may be people you know who seem like the cutest couple, and may be great neighbors, who are actually people who were brought together by GSA.

Please help make it possible for more people who've been brought together through GSA lead "normal" lives.

See Myth: Only Defective People Experience GSA

See Myth: GSA Causes Birth Defects or the Children Will Be Deformed

Read More »

Saturday, August 19, 2017

'Pre-parties' and a 'tactical vomit' again! Can parents really provide a 'safe space' for young people to drink?

It's hard to believe that it was four years ago that I first wrote about the 'tactical vomit' phenomenon! If you were around at that time you may remember that I was asked by a Year 10 girl what I thought about the 'benefits' of a 'tactical vomit' ... now, as I said in that blog entry, maybe I had missed something when  I was a teenager but I had never heard of this. It took a little time and quite a few conversations with friends, colleagues and some young people to really get what she was talking about ... As I said then, there were certainly some people who had a vague idea of what she was referring to but almost everybody was surprised about the age of the girl who asked me about the practice.

For the uninitiated, here is a part of an email I received from another Year 10 girl who I asked to describe a 'tactical vomit' and how it was used by young people of her age:

"Before we go out to a party for the night we usually meet at someone else's house and have a few drinks beforehand. Sometimes someone drinks too much and it gets to a point that we know she won't be able to get into the party we're going to because she looks too drunk and the parents or security guards wouldn't let her in ... That's when we would have a tactical vomit - she would go into the toilet and stick her fingers down her throat or drink a glass of salty water to throw up and sober herself up. After a bit of time she'll feel a little better and we can go to the party and get in."

What we are essentially talking about here is 'self-stomach pumping'! As I said at the time, this is not an entirely new phenomenon. In fact, there are a range of definitions describing the practice available on the web, with some websites actually providing advice on how to make yourself vomit. Now, if you're in your late teens or early 20s and surrounded by friends who may have a bit of life experience and you think that this might be a good idea for you, go for it! What continues to concern me is how young some of these teens are and, more importantly, where are the parents who are meant to be supervising them at these 'pre-party' events?

In the past couple of weeks I've been asked about a tactical vomit at least three times, all in the context of drinking too much at a 'pre-party' and then having to try to sober up to ensure that they could get into the 'real party' of the night. So what is it with these so-called 'pre's' and where are the parents who should be monitoring what these very young teens are doing?

I've discussed the 'pre's' phenomenon many times over the years. These began with the 'pre-formal' drinks that some parents host before school events (something I just can't understand - providing alcohol to young people, no matter how small an amount, and then sending them off to a school function where teachers have to supervise - it's so unfair to the staff and potentially, so dangerous!). Unfortunately, these aren't new and have been around for many years. What is new, however, is the whole idea of the 'pre-party'. Some of these are hosted by parents, where those attending are either provided, or bring their own alcohol and drink it before attending a potentially 'dry' party later on that evening. To the best of my knowledge, the parties where parents provide alcohol, or tolerate or 'turn a blind eye' to drinking, usually don't start until around 15-years-old. That said, there are certainly 'pre's' that 14-year-olds attend where alcohol is consumed. That's no surprise when you hear what some parents are doing at even younger ages ... I was recently told by a parent that her 11-year-old daughter was invited to a 'pre-sleepover', where the girls attending were provided with a mocktail at the door as they entered! Why would anyone host an event like this and why would you be giving a mocktail to an 11-year-old?

From what I've heard from young people about the 'pre's' they attend, some of the main features of these events are as follows:
  • they are usually quite small, comprising of just their close friendship group
  • the main purpose of many (but certainly not all) of these is to preload with alcohol before the main event of the night, particularly if it is a 'dry' event, i.e., security will be present and alcohol is not permitted
  • they are much more popular with girls than with young men, often because females often use them to get dressed and 'made-up' (sometimes changing into clothing that their parents would not necessarily deem appropriate)
  • some parents do allow alcohol to be consumed but that is certainly not always the case
  • although parents can sometimes be there, often a home will be chosen specifically because they won't be there. These events are held early and are short (a couple of hours at most), enabling teens to arrive, do what they need to do and leave - all in the time it can take for parents to see a movie or go out for dinner!
  • as they're held earlier in the evening (or in some cases, the late afternoon), teens are much more likely to be able to convince their parents to let them get to the house by themselves, thus avoiding any issues with meeting other parents and the like
I was talking to a Year 11 girl this week and when I asked her about 'pre's' and whether she went to them she said the following:

"I don't drink alcohol so there's no point to me going to them. Lots of my friends go and get drunk before the party but I don't bother anymore. When we were younger in Year 7 and 8, 'pre's' were all about getting dressed up, putting on make-up and getting ready, but now they're all about drinking."

When I asked one of her friends she was with about parent supervision at these events, she said she rarely saw parents when she attended:

"If someone is home, you don't really see them. They kind of leave us alone to do our thing. I've never been to a 'pre' where the parents have given alcohol to us but I don't think we've had to hide our drinking from them since we were in Year 9. They just know that it's safer for us to drink in their house than in the park." 

And there it is again ... that old chestnut, it's safer to let them drink in the home because "at least they're not drinking in a park!" Maybe I could agree with that statement if there was any sign at all of parental monitoring of the drinking that takes place at these events, but there clearly isn't any ... When 14- and 15-year-olds are getting so drunk at 'pre's' that they actually have to put their fingers down their throats and vomit in an effort to enable them to go to where they're planning to go next, you have to doubt there is little, if any, monitoring happening at all!

I am now starting to believe that the 'pre's' are now becoming more dangerous events than the parties they precede. Anecdotally, parents certainly appear to be putting much more effort to ensuring the parties they put on in the home are as safe as possible. It takes a brave parent to host a teenage party and when time and energy are put into planning these events, most go off reasonably successfully. You don't see the same effort applied to the 'pre' and this is why we are increasingly seeing very young teens turning up at the door of a party incredibly intoxicated (i.e., 14-year-old girls too drunk to walk and boys of the same age throwing up on the front garden of a party as they fall out of a taxi). Where are the parents of these young people who are so at-risk? Did they bother to find out anything about the 'pre' that their child was going to? And what about the parents hosting the 'pre's' - did they see these teens before they left their house to make sure they were safe and well?

I'm certainly not saying that you shouldn't let your teen go to these events - please don't use what I say as a 'big stick' and say "Paul Dillon said ...". If your child wants to attend, you should try your best to let them - saying 'no' to them all the time is not going to make it easy for anyone. But do your due diligence and find out more about the events your son or daughter wants to attend on a Saturday night, not just the party but the 'pre-party' as well. Will there be parents actively supervising? Will alcohol be permitted or tolerated? How will they be getting from the 'pre' to the actual party? Based on the information you collect, you can then make a decision on whether they can go or not and what 'caveats' you need to place on their attendance to ensure their safety.

As I've said many times before, if a teen wants to drink, there is very little that any parent can do to stop that from happening. Were your parents able to stop you? That said, parents should make every effort to make it as difficult as humanly possible for them to access alcohol for as long they can. Hosting events for young teens to drink alcohol and then sending them off to someone else's home for the rest of the evening makes little sense and, is in fact, incredibly dangerous (and unbelievably unfair to the host parents of the next party). The concept of tactical vomiting is a great example of potentially dangerous behaviour associated with this idea of providing a 'safe space' for young people to drink.

Read More »

Thursday, August 17, 2017

Hate Kills

There has been a long march to achieve civil rights and even basic human rights. It seems that every country goes through their own struggle against the forces of prejudice and bigotry, with the privileged reluctant to give up their powers of discrimination, especially against minorities. Sometimes they even act out violently.

The forces against progress are apparently determined to try to stall their inevitable defeats as long as possible, despite it being obvious to anyone to stops to think that rights for all is our destiny.

The problem is, this is not some friendly little debate over some unimportant matter.

There are people who are literally dying because of the hate and the discrimination it produces.

The haters have blood on their hands.

We really don’t care if you find the love lives and sexuality or gender identity of others to be strange or disgusting, or if your religion disapproves. Does your religion tell you that your god wants people killing themselves? Because there are people driven to suicide due to the senseless hostility constantly directed at them, and for what? For what? Because they love someone! There's no good reason to keep the discrimination going. Finding good therapists and other health care providers and helping professionals, and being honest with them, is difficult for some because of the criminalization of love. Your personal disapproval should not interfere in the lives of anyone else! Don’t want a consanguinamorous relationship, or a polyamorous one for that matter, or a gay one, or interracial one? Then don’t have one!

Stop standing in the way of people being themselves and sharing love and affection.

Be an ally instead.

If you’re facing hate, please don’t harm yourself. Get help instead, and know you’re not alone. You can write Keith at fullmarriageequality at protonmail dot com.


Read More »

Myth: Only Defective People Experience GSA

Reality: The only thing that fills in the blank of  “Only ___ experience reunion Genetic Sexual Attraction” is “introduced or reunited close genetic relatives.”

When someone says that only people who are [fill in the blank with whatever thing they think is an insult or pejorative] experiences reunion Genetic Sexual Attraction, they are speaking out of prejudice and ignorance. They might dismiss all people who experience GSA as being lonely, desperate for attention, rebellious, immoral, hypersexed, promiscuous, lacking boundaries, weak, lacking self-control, ignorant, uneducated, freaks, losers, unattractive, or whatever.

It’s not true.

People who experience GSA come from every demographic in every part of the world. There are attractive, outgoing, popular, successful, wealthy, disciplined, educated people who’ve experienced GSA, many of whom have been or still are, sexually involved. Their sex lives may have been rather average or even conservative before GSA. People who’ve experienced GSA come from diverse racial, professional, financial, political, and religious backgrounds.

Nobody's perfect, and it is tempting for the ignorant to point to some shortcoming or something missing in the life of someone experiencing GSA and insist it is the reason the person is experiencing GSA or having a consanguinamorous relationship. Or, it can be temping to point out how someone is different than you and blame that. It just doesn't match up to reality.

Based on the diverse backgrounds and situations and characteristics of people who've experienced GSA, it is apparent that is not the result of anything being "wrong" with the person who experiences it.

See Myth: Acting on GSA is Wrong or Destructive

See Myth: People Who Act on GSA Won't Be Able to Have Normal Lives

Read More »

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Myth: Acting on GSA is Wrong or Destructive

Reality: Acting romantically or sexually on Genetic Sexual Attraction is neither inherently wrong nor destructive. As with any other factor when it comes to relationships, not every situation is the same. Some people just aren’t right for each other. Some people want to keep a vow of monogamy to someone else. Some people want a partner that is close in age, and their GSA relative is significantly older or younger. There are many different things that come into play in relationships. That consenting adults are close genetic relatives does not make a romantic or sexual involvement with each other wrong.

Different people are going to have different moral guidelines about sex, but consanguinamory by people who were not raised together or by one another (which is the situation with reunion GSA) is not considered wrong by everyone or all cultures. Nor is there anything inherently destructive about it, but rather some find it constructive.

For some, it is the best of all possibilities; it is wonderful, lasting, and fulfilling.

What can be destructive is prejudice against GSA or consanguinamory, expressed through criminal prosecution or attacks by family or others.  There is no good reason to deny consenting adults their basic rights when it comes to relationships and their sexuality. Family and friends might benefit from reading this.

See Myth: GSA is Unnatural

See Myth: Only Defective People Experience GSA

Read More »

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Swinging Around the Family Tree

I know more than one polyamorous relationship that involves close relatives. In some cases, a consanguinamorous relationship is involved, meaning the close relatives are partners, and in other cases, they are not with each other but are with the same person or part of the same polycule. Some famous male polygynists in plural marriages are married to sisters. Traditional polyandry in places like India usually involves a woman married to multiple brothers.

I’m always interested in hearing from more people in such relationships. I’m also interested in hearing from others who may or may not be in ongoing relationships, but have been been in sexual situations, whether planned or not, where a relative (blood, step, adopted, on in-law,) perhaps a cousin, sibling, parent, uncle, aunt, adult child, nephew, or niece was involved or at least present. For example, someone goes to a play party and is surprised to find their sibling there. Or maybe it was a private threesome with siblings or parent and their adult child.

Basically, I’m looking for people who’ve been to the intersection of polyamory or swinging or threesomes/moresomes (and those three are NOT synonyms, by the way) and family connections.
I do realize that many nonmonogamous people are completely opposed to consanguinamorous relationships, and I also know some people in consanguinamorous relationships think monogamy is the only right way. That is one of the reasons I’m seeking people who’ve experienced the intersection of sexuality with more than two people involved or present + legal or blood relation. I know some. I’m looking to hear from more.

And I’m always looking for anyone who wants to be interviewed or just wants to correspond who is, or was, in a “forbidden” consensual adult relationship (including monogamous ones) or now that faces cultural, familial, or legal opposition (interracial, intergenerational, gay, polyamorous, polygamous, open, consanguineous, etc.)

Please write me via my Tumblr http://ift.tt/1nhIzEn or Facebook at http://ift.tt/1k1HqWn or email fullmarriageequality at protonmail dot com



Read More »

Monday, August 14, 2017

Myth: GSA is Unnatural

Reality: Genetic Sexual Attraction is a normal and natural reaction to the circumstances.

While it is very common for people who spent their childhoods in the same residence together or were raised by one another, whether genetically related or not, to develop a suppression of sexual attraction to each other (this has been described as the Westermarck Effect), close genetic relatives who were not raised together or by one another don’t develop this suppression towards each other. Nor do all people who were raised together or by one another.

They may not be attracted to each other, but they may be. They may even be intensely attracted to each other. Even if intensely attracted to each other, they may not be right for each other. Or, they may be right for each and might go on to have lifelong happiness together.

Studies reveal most people are attracted to people who look like them. Who looks like more you than your close genetic relatives? While not all introductions or reunions result in attraction, many do. And sometimes, the attraction is mutual.

Not only can they look like each other, share genes, and share other traits, but an adult genetic child can look like their other parent; someone to whom the reuniting genetic parent may have had an attraction (especially if the child was conceived through intercourse.) Or, this virtual social stranger can look like your sibling, custodial parent, or other family members, creating a sense of bonding or familiarity.

See Myth: Anyone Experiencing GSA Needs Therapy

See Myth: Acting on GSA is Wrong or Destructive

Read More »