GSA Siblings Featured in Good Housekeeping

[This is being bumped up from 2015 because a recent tweet to the article by Cosmo set off controversy all over again.] Also, in sister publications Esquire and Cosmopolitan. Yup, Asher Fogle and her publishing employers are probably receiving all sorts of bigoted hate mail right now. Here's the article that is getting the prejudiced discriminators foaming at the mouth.


It's a feature that involves Genetic Sexual Attraction.

975Shares

• Share
• Tweet
• Pin
• E-mail

Two days later, Melissa drove two hours at night during a Monday Midwestern snowfall to meet her brother. And when she saw him standing in the frigid air outside his office building, she felt a connection that was instantaneous and electric.

"It was love at first sight, absolutely the craziest thing I have ever experienced," Melissa says. "The sexual force was like I was levitating off the earth. Your body instantly craves the other person."

The feeling was mutual: The pair shyly hugged and they had trouble looking at each other, in part because it was like gazing in a mirror, they looked so similar. "It was trippy, like seeing yourself in the opposite form," Brian says. "Everything inside you is just vibrating. Your cells know that this is your person."

The article does explore the possible science behind GSA.

Social scientists and psychologists have long researched how societies' prohibition against incest evolved: It's essentially nature's way of protecting humans from passing along the genetic mutations and disease risks that happen more commonly with close relatives, explains Dr. Debra Lieberman, a professor of Psychology at the University of Miami. The dominant theory, first proposed by Finnish social scientist Edward Westermark, is that people become desensitized to those they are raised alongside.

"Westermarck's hypothesis and my research have shown that siblings use clues like living under the same roof and being cared for the same parents to develop a sexual aversion," Lieberman says. "But if you don't grow up together, no aversion naturally develops."

And not everyone who does grow up together experiences the Westermarck Effect.

The flip side is something Lieberman calls her "template hypothesis." All people form a template for the world based on the people and their surroundings during development: what men and women look like, what their roles are, etc. Then, they seek that out in a mate. This is common for non-related couples, too, psychologist and sex expert Isadora Alman notes.

"Many couples experience the feeling of being instantly attracted to someone that is familiar in some way, whether it's a physical reminder of someone beloved or something else they can't put their finger on," Alman says. "Love at first sight is a real phenomenon."

But it's been suggested that this feeling is even stronger for consanguineous (a.k.a. related) couples, especially those who don't develop the ick factor from growing up together. Why? "Genes tend to shape our preferences, talents, and attitudes — and familiarity creates comfort, so we look for someone similar," Lieberman says. "For siblings, this drives an enhanced sexual attraction." Which is exactly what happened to Melissa and Brian.

This is an issue that can't be ignored. It is going to happen more and more over the next few decades. As expected, the ignorant and the bigoted haters are commenting on the article, but they are throwing in red herrings at best, and otherwise are using Discredited Arguments. There is no good reason they shouldn't be free to be together.

Start reading through our series on myths about GSA.

Read More »

'Loving' or 'indulgent'? Child-centred parenting and its implications for a child's future socializing and potential alcohol and other drug use

I've given a lot of talks over the years, to a wide variety of audiences but over the past couple of weeks I've delivered a number of presentations specifically targeting parents of primary school-aged children. I've offered similar talks to schools over the years, but of the handful I've delivered, they've attracted very small audiences. It's always a battle to get parents to attend any presentation around alcohol and other drugs (AOD), but if they do come, it's usually when they believe their child is starting to be exposed to the issue, i.e., they're starting to be invited to parties and gatherings or they have actually discovered that their teen is drinking. I think most parents of primary school-aged children who see an AOD talk advertised believe that this is something they're going to have to worry about in the future and brush it off, saying that they'll attend something like that when it becomes an issue. Of course, prevention is better than cure, so it makes perfect sense to get to parents nice and early and to provide them with some simple strategies that could help either prevent, or at least delay, potential problems in the future. Lay the right foundations when they're young and parenting during adolescence will be so much easier.  Unfortunately, if you 'get it wrong' during the pre-primary and primary years, the implications for the future can be frightening, particularly when it comes to socializing and, of course, that's where alcohol and other drug use comes in ...

I say this in almost every blog entry but it's important to note it one more time ... no-one can tell you how to parent your child, not your sister-in-law, a so-called 'parenting expert' or your best friend. Unfortunately, your child does not come with a rule-book - you and your partner are the only ones that can or should make those decisions! That said, there is a wealth of research that you can use to inform your decisions, so with that in mind, here are some things to consider if you are a parent of a pre-primary or primary school-aged child ...

We know that one of the keys to getting your child safely through adolescence, particularly in relation to alcohol and partying, is 'monitoring' them effectively, i.e., know where they are, know who they're with and know when they'll be home. It's a message we hammer home to parents of teens - keep monitoring your teens! Of course, this needs to be age-appropriate and needs to change as they get older but keep on doing it ... When it comes to parents of young children, we know that the vast majority monitor their sons and daughters extremely well. So if they're getting the monitoring so right, where is it potentially going wrong? There are a number of concerns but essentially it all boils down to a move towards more 'child-centred' or 'indulgent' parenting.

Child-centred parenting arose in response to 'adult-centred' parenting, which was regarded as the norm for previous generations, where parents set the rules and children were expected to follow them. There was no explanation given as to why the rules existed and this was often regarded as quite 'brutal' or 'top-down' parenting. In contrast, child-centred parenting is organized around the needs of the child, rather than those of the parent. In a 2015 online article, Michael Mascolo identified three reasons why this type of parenting has become so popular with parents in recent years:

• child-centred parents want to foster children's autonomy, initiative and creativity, believing that "too much parental direction can undercut a child's autonomy".  As a result, child-centred parents adopt a less directive role
• parents love their children and want the best for them and want to protect them from bad feelings.  Similarly, parents believe that children need to have positive self-esteem – praising children whenever possible, often withholding critical feedback fearing that it might damage a child's self-esteem
• some see their children as 'little adults' who have rights that are more-or-less the same as adults.  For such parents, this means infringing on a child's right to make his or her own choices

He goes onto say the following - "Research shows that there is a rather large paradox in child-centred parenting.  Parents who emphasize loving care over high expectations tend to have more conflict in their homes than not." As much as this may seem a really positive way of parenting, we know that in many cases (but certainly not in all) it often leads to a range of problems.

When it comes to socializing and alcohol and other drug use, what are the potential issues? Most parents who support this type of parenting believe that allowing children to make their own decisions from an early age ensures that they are better equipped to make healthier choices when they are older. The problem that parents are increasingly facing is that after allowing their children to make their own choices when they are in primary school (that usually do not involve a great deal of risk), they find that their teens also want (and expect) to make their own decisions about going to parties and drinking. Quite quickly these parents find that if they want to keep their son or daughter as safe as possible, they're going to have to have an input about what does and doesn't happen and, of course, this inevitably leads to conflict!

Put simply, if you have a home that revolves around your pre-primary or primary school-aged child and they are having too much of a say in the decision making that takes place, you should prepare yourself for a rocky road ahead, particularly in the teen years. The good news is that if you act now, you can make a difference. Sure, you should love your kids but there's a difference between being 'loving' and being 'indulgent' ... 

So how do you know if you've crossed that line and you now have a 'child-centric' home? If you find yourself answering 'Yes' to 4 or more of these questions, my suggestion is that it's time to 'apply the brakes':

• Are you constantly negotiating rules with your child?
• Do you need to 'bribe' them to do tasks?
• Are their demands being met simply to 'keep the peace'?
• Are you not following-through with consequences because you do not want to deal with their response?
• Are you asking the school to 'parent' for you?
• Do you use their teacher as the reason limits have been set instead of 'owning' the rules yourself?
• Are you allowing them to do things you do not feel comfortable with because they say 'everybody else does'?
• Are they never satisfied with what they have and always wants what others have, and then you give it to them?
• Are you constantly shielding them from potentially difficult situations and emotions?
• Do they have too much say in what your family does in daily life?

Applying the brakes, particularly as they get older, is not going to be easy but nothing about parenting ever is - but trying to get that balance of love and strictness right in the early years is so important and worth the effort. And to those parents who still believe that child-centred parenting (instead of a more balanced approach of rules, consequences bound in unconditional love) is the way to go and strongly relate to the reasons that Mascolo put forward as to why many gravitate towards that style of parenting, I'll leave you with a quote from his article that highlights the inherent flaws in that argument:

"It is true that children are act out of curiosity, but without parental guidance, children cannot learn to go beyond their comfort zones and learn about things that do not interest them.  It is true that children need loving parents who are sensitive to their emotions, but they also need adults who teach them how to cope with hardship, struggle and failure.  And it is true that children have rights, but these rights do not make them equal to adults."

Reference

Mascolo, M. (2015). The Failure of Child-Centred Parenting. May 15, Psychology Today, article accessed 2 November, 2017, http://ift.tt/1IGgzaI.

Read More »

Genetic Sexual Attraction is Not a Mental Disorder or Character Flaw

Since Genetic Sexual Attraction or Genetic Attraction isn't something most of the masses know or understand, it's easy for there to be misunderstanding about it, especially some seemingly sadistic (and I'm not talking about the good kind of sadism) bigots decide to verbally beat up people who have experienced GSA.

GSA describes the intense, overwhelming attraction a postpubescent person may experience after being reunited or introduced to a postpubescent close genetic relative with whom they've had little-to-no contact since about age seven or before. It can happen when someone conceived through sperm donation meets someone else who had the same sperm donor. It can happen when a woman meets the genetic father who never knew she existed because she was conceived during a one night stand. It can happen when an adoptee reunites with a birth parent or finds an aunt or uncle or full or half sibling. It can happen when full or half siblings were separated because of divorce as young children and raised thousand of miles apart, barely seeing each other until they're in their late teens or older. There are many ways for this to happen.

It's about the phenomenon experienced by an individual. That person may not even tell anyone else about this. It may or may not be reciprocated. If reciprocated, sex often, but not always, results. Trying to dismiss GSA as some deceptive synonym for incest is ignorance or a willful attack on persecuted people, many of whom had absolutely no say in the circumstances that have resulted in GSA.

How do we know GSA exists? How does one prove ANY attraction exists? By analyzing what people communicate and how they're observed behaving. After decades of case after case, it's rather obvious to someone who bothers to look into the matter that GSA is real. GSA almost always involves pain, discomfort, and some hardships. It isn't like there's this big incentive for people to wake up one day and decide it would be fun to put themselves in the path of massive amounts of bigotry, including death threats. Adoption organizations and discussion forums warn about GSA. There is a GSA-focused forum where acting on GSA is discouraged. They know it's real. These are not people trying to pull a fast one on anyone. This is not some game. This is about lives and families.

GSA is not a mental disorder. It's not a character flaw. It's a normal, natural reaction experienced by many (certainly not all, probably not even most) people in a specific set of circumstances. We know this because GSA has been experienced by...

• People who didn't know they were close genetic relatives
• People who did know they were close genetic relatives and had never heard of GSA
• People who did know they were close genetic relatives and were warned about GSA
• People with a strong religious/moral/personal objection to the idea of consanguineous relationships
• People with no opinion about consanguineous relationships
• People who didn't know they were adopted or had a close genetic relative they hadn't met
• People who knew all along they were adopted or had a close genetic relative they hadn't met
• People raised with both biological parents
• People with generally happy and healthy childhoods
• People with horrible childhoods
• People who've had positive relationship experiences
• People who've had one bad relationship after another
• People happily in a closed relationship to which they've remained faithful
• People unhappy in their relationship
• People who have no attraction to any other genetic relative or close family member who isn't a genetic relative
• Highly educated and successful people
• People without higher education
• People who've been pillars of the community
• People who've had a lot of trouble with the law
• Men attracted to women
• Men attracted to men
• Women attracted to men
• Women attracted to women
• (People of any sexual orientation, really.)

As with any other segments of the population, there are some people who experience GSA who have a mental disorder, but GSA has nothing to do with having that mental disorder; many people without a serious mental disorder experience GSA. Sexual relationships initiated through GSA, like any other sexual relationship, might include people with serious character flaws, but that has nothing to do with GSA. Like any other grouping of relationships, there are some sexual relationships initiated through GSA that involve abuse or cheating, but most GSA-initiated relationships don't.

There are GSA-initiated consanguinamorous relationships that have been healthy, happy (aside from dealing with bigotry), and have lasted until death. We personally know some, and you do, too, whether you know it or not.

Yes, people can avoid acting on their attractions, no matter how strong. But if they want to be together and are right for each other, why should they have to avoid it? We're still waiting for a single good reason they should be thrown in prison or otherwise discriminated against, including denied their right to marry. Someone else's disgust or disapproval is not a good reason people should have to deny each other and be alone or "settle" for someone else (which, by the way, is severely unfair to the person who is unknowingly taken on as a consolation prize.)

"But you have billions of other people you can be with!" says the bigot.

So what???

The American white man, Mr. Richard Loving, had many white women in the surrounding population he could have courted and married. But he married Mildred Jeter, an American "black" woman. That was illegal in many states. Those laws were wrong, as have been the people who have attacked such relationships. Consenting adults should be free to have the relationships to which they mutually agree, no matter what phrases are used to describe the relationships.

Having consenting adults loving each other isn't a problem. It's a great thing. To quote the songwriter, what the world needs now is love. Don't engage in hate pollution.

If you've experienced GSA, know that you're not alone and there's nothing wrong with you (well, at least not based on experiencing GSA!) You have friends in us.

If someone you know is experiencing GSA, please be kind and supportive.

If you want to help all adults enjoy their rights, please do.

There is some help to be found.

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 »

Walking may slow Memory loss

Read More »

Living Consanguinamorously - What About Roles?

Q: In a consanguinamorous relationship, what happens to the biological roles?

This is sometimes asked as “Do they still see themselves as siblings (or parent/child, etc.)?” or various other questions.

A (Short): It depends. Every situation has some differences from others.

A (Long): One of the questions usually asked in the exclusive interviews featured on this blog is that very question. Consanguineous lovers are asked if they see each other primarily as lovers or as family or if those things are inseparable. Hopefully in any relationship, people see each other as people first and foremost.

Relationships come in many varieties.

There a reunion cases in which the individuals didn’t know about each other until they were well into adulthood, and there are relationships between family members who have always been close and always in each other’s life, and everything in between.

There are relatives who only occasionally have sex, casually hooking up with each other alone or in situations involving group sex or swinging, and there are relatives deeply in love in monogamous or polyfidelitous lifelong spousal romances, and there’s everything in between.

That there is such diversity in situations and diversity in individuals means that some are going to see each other more in their familial roles most of the time, and others who are going to see each other primarily as lovers most of the time, and some who drift back and forth, and some who tend to see each other as both most of the time. If a couple has lost the rest of their family (or never had any others) or has moved to where people don’t know of their relation in order to live openly as a couple, they familial roles may be significantly reduced, but out of practicality and being free of the expectations of others.

People who are consanguinamorous in their orientation and in a sexually active relationship are going to tend to see both at the same time, as in “This is my brother and my lover” or “This is my mother and my lover”, etc. Conversely, people who are primarily in a “family-with-benefits” situation may only focus on the lover role at the appointed times or in a designated room of the home.

Something many people in consanguinamorous relationships experience is something described as “double love” or a “double bond.” One is not replaced by the other, but rather added to. They love each other as family and as partners, and the combination is very powerful. Contrary to the Discredited Argument that consanguinamory will ruin a family relationship, it can actually improve them significantly.

Some ethical nonmonogamists (and even some monogamists have picked up on it) point out that people can “design their own relationships.” Rather than letting other people or the culture at large tell them how they should live out their relationships, they have found that they can best be happy and functional mutually negotiating what is best for them. This can refer to everything from sex to sleeping arrangements to living together or not to when they will share meals, what activities they will do together as a couple, what they will do with others, on and on it goes. Likewise, consanguinamorists can decide what their boundaries and how their roles will be lived out.

If you have experience with consanguinamory, what have been your thoughts, feelings, and agreements on this? Comment below. You can do so anonymously.

Read More »

Happy Halloween

Is it true what I've heard, that outside the US Halloween is no big deal? Halloween is October 31 and it is celebrated widely and diversely here in the US.

Do you have any special plans for Halloween? Have you done or will you do anything fun or interesting this year at a Halloween party or event?

Here in the states, the stores depend on Halloween to sell a lot of merchandise. There are parties, costume contests, what amounts to theatre in front of (and inside, sometimes) the homes of people as they try to scare or entertain neighbors and strangers with things ranging from silly to sexy, spooky to gory. In some places, kids (and often parents) in costumes go from door to door collecting candy or other treats.

Many amusement parks, ranging from small to the largest, do special entertainment in the weeks leading up to Halloween, and this is a favorite time of the year for movie studios to release horror movies, and for broadcasters to show ones from years past.

For some, there are religious or spiritual aspects to the day, and it might be called by other names.

Some interesting things can happen when people are having fun at costume parties, or cuddled up together watching scary movies.

So, as always, feel free to comment or share your stories.

Read More »

How Consanguineous Lovers Can Avoid Trouble

Believe it or not, there are still criminal laws in many places criminalizing consensual sex between adults, and there are still police officers who will investigate people for this "crime," still prosecutors who will take the case before a court, and still judges and jurors who will convict people and sentence them to prison. There are still social workers who will take children away from good parents because those parents love other adults.

It doesn't matter to them how loving the relationships are. It doesn't matter if they love each other more than they could love others, it doesn't matter if the lovers didn't even meet each other until they were adults. It apparently doesn't matter to the people interfering that every dollar or minute they spend trying to stop consenting adults from loving each other is a dollar or minute that could instead go into protecting people, especially children, against predators.

In addition to this persecution of consanguinamorous people, there aren't any protections against other forms of discrimination against the consanguinamorous, such as employment discrimination. There are still many states that don't have protections for LGBT people, either, and polyamorous people are even less protected than monogamous LGBT people.

I sometimes forget that people don’t follow the news and law as closely as I do for this blog, so they may be unaware of these things. So I want to share with you what I've learned.

First, note the disclaimer that there is an ever-present at the bottom of this blog. I'll mostly repeat it here:

The focus of this blog is consenting adults. This blog does not advocate anyone engage in activity that is currently illegal in their jurisdiction; it does advocate changing or repealing any law that prevents the freedom of association, love, and full marriage equality for adults. This blog condemns rape, sexual assault, and child molestation, and does not provide medical, therapeutic, legal, financial, or cooking advice. This blog links to other sites for informational purposes; it does not necessarily support everything at those links.

OK, with that out of the way, I'll continue as a friend.

The vast majority of people who have consensual sex with a close relative never get "caught." 10-15% of people in their early 20s will confide in surveys to having had consensual sexual contact with a sibling. The percentages rise in older age groups. That's just the people who will confide in the surveys, and doesn't include being with aunts, uncles, parents, etc.. The percentages increase in older age groups because there are more opportunities over the years. Many of those situations involve a moment or a fling or something that just lasts for season, but in other cases they are long-term romances and lifelong spousal relationships.

I hear from people terrified of being prosecuted or losing their children because those adults are with consenting adults and some person with authority doesn't approve.

While most never get prosecuted, the threat is always there in so many places, and I regularly find news reports of such prosecutions. When people do get caught and publicly persecuted and, often, prosecuted, in almost every case, the lovers were outed and handed over to ax-grinding prosecutors due to one or more of a few factors (presented in no particular order):

1) Self-incrimination.
2) Being ratted out by a claimed witness.
3) Testing and reporting of a child's DNA.
4) Being caught in the act by law enforcement.

In other words, it isn’t like the police come door to door, scan crowds in public, or are doing stakeouts to catch consanguineous lovers breaking laws against consensual incest. That's the good news. But let's take a closer look at the bad news.

Self-incrimination. One of the problems is that people either "confess" or tell law enforcement way too much that they don't have to. One or more of them admit the relationship, often not aware it is (still, stupidly) illegal where they are, wrongly thinking if they explain it was consensual then of course the police will leave them alone. For a real-life example of this, see this posting. Law enforcement may also get a hold of some media (love letters, homemade videos) that documents the sexual aspect of the relationship. That's right... doing something so many other lovers do freely can be used against these consensual relationships.

Ratted out. Someone outside of the relationship, whether a nosy neighbor, a malicious ex, a jealous or envious family member, even a professional/academic/social rival sees something, hears something, or just gets a hunch based on how the lovers are smitten with each other and they contact the authorities. See this example.

Child. If someone dares to exercise their reproductive rights and have a child together, the DNA of that child is proof of parentage. Contrary to popular myths, most children born to close relatives are healthy and do not look any different than any other child. Many of the ones I've seen are beautiful children. But, if the child's DNA is tested and the results showing the parents are consanguineous reported to the authorities, depending on the circumstances it may be used as evidence against the lovers. See this example.

Caught in public. Many, many people have had sex in "public" places, usually without getting caught. Depending on the circumstances, police might send the lovers on their way. But, if in checking identification and asking questions, the police determine that the lovers are closely related (see "self-incrimination" above), they might arrest the lovers even when they would have otherwise let them go. See this example.

So what can those who enjoy consanguinamory do to protect themselves? Any of these steps might help.

1) Consult a lawyer. I am not a lawyer. A criminal defense or family law attorney might be someone well worth consulting. (If you are an attorney willing to help, please contact us as we'd like to develop a private list of friendly legal counsel.)

2) Move to more enlightened states or countries. Moving also may get you away from those who are aware of your biological relation and would oppose your relationship. The best states in the US are Rhode Island and New Jersey. Perhaps the worst state is Texas, which technically criminalizes sex between first cousins (as do a few others).

3) Be careful who you tell and what you tell them. In the US, we have a Constitutional right against self-incrimination (see 5th Amendment) and the right to remain silent when arrested by law enforcement. It's a good idea when dealing with police to give them polite, brief "yes" or "no" or "I don't know" or "I don't remember" answers unless even one of those could incriminate you. In the US, you also have the right to an attorney and it is a good idea speak up and ask for a lawyer if you're held or taken in by police. Also in the US, unless there is imminent danger to someone, you don't have the let police into your home without a search warrant, and even search warrants can have limits. YOU may think something is obvious and gives you away, the police may even have figured it out, but staying silent about it can still protect you. Please see this about talking with the police.

4) Be careful what you document. Many lovers enjoy taking video or pictures of themselves having fun with each other, but for the consanguinamorous, such media, if it falls into the wrong hands, can be trouble.

5) Have a cover story. Anticipate questions, whether from those who know you or those who don't who might not approve. There's nothing unusual or unconventional about family members living together, going places together, or frequently visiting each other. In extreme situations, consanguineous lovers might want to take on "beards," meaning pretending to have a relationship with (even marrying) others to direct attention away from their "forbidden" relationship. If someone does this, it is better not to deceive the beard(s) but rather have an agreement with someone who is fully informed. An example of an ideal situation along these lines would be if two siblings from one family married two siblings from another family. Such marriages have always gone on and were even popular in some places in the past, whether as real marriages or as beard situations.

Lovers may want to discuss The Red Button as an option, in case law enforcement ever takes an interest in the relationship.

6) Know your risk in having biological children together. Many consanguineous lovers opt not to take the risk, either for genetic reasons or legal reasons (or, like other people, because they just plain preferred not to have children). In some places, a credible defense if DNA proves a child was born to close relatives is to claim that the child was conceived through using a turkey baster or condom or sex toy that resulted in artificial insemination (the claim would be that the male ejaculated onto or into the object, which was then inserted into the female). In such places, it is the actual sex act that is criminal, not having genetic children together.

7) Stick to private places and lock the door when you get to the fun.

For more, see this by Cristina on dealing with authorities in the US and Jane's blog entry on dealing with the authorities in the UK.


Note that most ethicists say it is OK to lie to authorities who are trying to enforce unjust laws or polices. An extreme example is a Nazi SS officer asking you, "Are you hiding any Jews here?" It was ethical to say "No." Well, I think that applies here, too, though the situation is not as extreme. It is nobody else's business if adults are having consensual sex.

This advice shouldn't even be necessary, but until we get to the point where we have relationship rights for all adults, including full marriage equality, consanguinamorous people should think about protecting themselves. Of course, some level of trouble is necessary to make change. Laws need to be overturned in courts or changed by legislatures, but it is up to each set of lovers to decide for themselves if they want to come out of the closet to push for those things. I have seen at least two couples come out publicly on Facebook, which resulted, in at least one of the cases, them being given trouble by some of the people who were supposed to be their friends. But the more other people realize that consanguinamory is a reality all around them, the sooner the persecution will be greatly reduced.

Police officers usually have some wiggle-room when it comes to investigating or arresting people can can look the other way if they choose. Prosecutors can choose not to prosecute. Judges can dismiss cases. Juries can refuse to convict (research jury nullification). So I beg these people to let consenting adults love each other without harassment, without prosecution.

Do you have any suggestions? Any tales to tell about what you've done to protect yourself, or being caught, or catching someone? What do you think, dear reader? Leave a comment or email me.

Read More »

NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #1

“It is disgusting.” Also known as the “ick” or “eww” factor, this explains why the person using the argument would not want to enter into the type of relationship or marriage or have the kind sex they want banned, but their own personal disgust is not a justification for preventing other people from doing something those other people want to do. Don’t want to have an (adult) intergenerational or interracial or same-gender or polyamorous or consanguineous marriage? Don’t have one. Some people are disgusted by the idea of heterosexual sex, or their parents having sex, but obviously this is not a justification to ban those things. Some people find prejudice and bigotry, a lack of marriage equality, disgusting. Meanwhile, the people in these relationships aren’t disgusted. How they love each other should be be up to them.

There is no good reason to deny an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion, the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage (or any of those without the others) with any and all consenting adults without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.

Feel free to share, copy and paste, and otherwise distribute. This has been adapted from this page at Full Marriage Equality: http://ift.tt/1K0B6Zj

Go to NOT a Good Reason to Deny Love #2

Read More »