Should I be worried if my partner is on a dating site?

Well folks, today I had this very brief but important question in my inbox:

‘My partner is on Tinder, should I be worried?’

Since the question is addressed to me, and not to one of the numerous agony aunt columnists out there for regulars, I can assume that the person who wrote me this is really asking this question within the context of consensual incest or GSA relationship.

As we know, Tinder is a dating site, and like all dating sites, it is used primarily by singles who are trying to find people to date. However, it’s my understanding that many of these sites also allow an option for people who simply seeking friends. I don’t personally know a great deal about what goes on in a dating site, having never felt the need to use one myself. However, I do understand that using such sites when one is already in a committed relationship could be potentially quite problematic (I am assuming here that this is a closed monogamous relationship).

The first issue this brings up is TRUST. In every functioning relationship there has to be trust between the two people involved, and when that trust is absent or broken it can bring anxiety, suspicion and jealousy into a relationship. This can be very destructive and make both parties feel miserable. Trust is also something which has to be earned, it isn’t just offered up on a silver platter, it’s built over time, and if it is destroyed it can take a lot of rebuilding. This goes without saying and applies to all kinds of relationship across the board.

So when is it a good time to trust and when is it NOT a good time to trust? That’s a difficult question, because there are so many possibilities on what can work right or wrong in a relationship… but in the context of a consang relationship where one person is using a dating site, the following needs to be considered:

  • Other than their presence on a dating site, is there any indication of current cheating? Things like being out all night with no explanation, going to nightclubs and places where people would ordinarily expect to find a date.
  • Has this person cheated before, and if so was it ages ago and long forgiven and forgotten, or recently? If there was any prior cheating, especially recent cheating then this is a very good and understandable reason to be concerned.
  • Have you seen the content on the dating site, or is this hidden from you? If things are being deliberately hidden from you, then of course this is going to arouse some suspicion. That said, people do need their own personal space, so in this area you need to find a balance that is right for both of you.
  • Is there communication with the people on the site kept on the site, or does the other person get calls or texts? Giving out real world info like phone numbers is a bit different than sharing a few messages with some screen name.
  • Apart from this one issue, how is the state of your relationship? If you’re otherwise happy then working through an issue like this should be straightforward, if not, then obviously you will need to address any other issues as well.

On the whole, relationships work best when each person tries to do what is right by their partner. Here, we need a balance where both partners feel not only secure in the relationship, but also trusted. Knowing that, how do so some people manage to feel insecure, even within the phenomenal double-love bond? What can be done to help?

Firstly, we shouldn’t minimize the fears that some people have. It could come from feelings of not being good enough/good looking enough/young enough/providing enough… all kinds of thoughts can crop into peoples minds which can make them fear losing their other half (especially if you have been cheated on in a previous relationship or marriage). In consang relationships if one person is already feeling insecure for all the normal reasons, there is the additional fear that the other person might go and find somebody else so that they can have a relationship they don’t have to hide! All of this comes into play and can lead to a lot of guilt and anxiety.

So, what should the tinder user do? If this person is simply looking for friendships, then surely a social media site such as facebook would be a more appropriate choice for not triggering such fears while still making friends. They might not be doing anything wrong on the dating site, or they might be, but even if they aren’t, the fact that this could be upsetting to you should be a cause for concern in itself. If the other person can keep such friendship seeking to social media and not on dating sites and delete their profile from tinder, then your part of the bargain would have to be not to pry or spy. All people need personal space, and if somebody doesn’t feel trusted then it’s going to cause more issues.

You’re fortunate enough to have the precious double-love bond that so few in the world can begin to understand. Make sure you honor each other with trust, and do not violate boundaries you have agreed to with each other. It’s about finding the balance that works uniquely for your relationship, and it needs clear and honest communication about where those boundaries are, making an agreement and sticking to it. You need to have a conversation about this because if you’re just sat there worrying it won’t do any good.

As with any other kind of relationship, cheating is not condoned, it’s immoral, and it is a violation of a promise. If you do find solid proof of any cheating, then you have the option to forgive the transgression, or to walk away. Ultimately the choice would be down to you, and neither option is easy. Hopefully, this isn’t the case and your fears are just that, fears.

I hope this helps 🙂

Starcrossed Blog

Here’s another one for your bookmarks folks, say Hello to Keke and her brand new blog Starcrossed. As always keep an eye on this one for new content, as right now it’s still under construction. Welcome to the team Keke and we all wish you success with your new blog. I’ve added this to ‘useful links’ as well to make it easier for people to find again if they forget to bookmark.

When people accuse us of being ‘mentally ill’

I’ve touched on this subject in some of my articles, but I felt it deserved an article all on it’s own. We’re all familiar with the armchair eugenecists who bang on and on and on about the discredited mutant babies argument, but there is another group who exhibit the same behaviour using an entirely different argument: armchair psychologists. These usually crop up in the form of media article columnists, and they exist too in the general population and often cite their opinions as basically agreeing with the armchair psychologists opinion: that all incest must be down to mental illness.

Now, how can some random person on the Internet, who doesn’t even know the couple they’re talking about, and who probably isn’t a qualified mental health professional (c’mon, how many journalists actually are?) possibly be equipped to make such a statement about that couple, or worse, extrapolate (from that tiny sample of one couple) and apply that to ALL people who are, or who have been involved in consensual incest or GSA? Putting it bluntly, it’s quite obvious that they can’t actually back up such statements with anything more than the appeal to common knowledge fallacy. Everyone knows people who do incest are mentally ill… right. Well, wrong. Everyone ‘knew’ that the Earth was flat, and look how accurate that belief turned out to be.

What’s even more interesting though, is analysing where such a widespread but inaccurate belief would have come from in the first place. So, let’s see what we can come up with, just free thinking here:

  1. Most people have a strong Westermarck Effect, rendering the idea disgusting. They do not know how or why we do not react in the same way. This misunderstanding leads to the assumption of mental illness.
  2. The assumption that family dynamics and romance are not compatible without the family bond being compromised or without some kind of unhealthy power play. So basically it’s not understanding double-love.
  3. The assumption that mentally healthy people do not have these kinds of relationships, therefore anyone who does must have a mental illness.
  4. The assumption that common knowledge on the subject is common knowledge because it is correct
  5. The assumption that incest has something to do with pedophilia (which is unhealthy adn evil in the extreme), backed up by media stories of adults who sexually abuse their children. This is a guilt by assoication logical fallacy.

So, what we can reasonably take from this is that there is a lot of assuming going on, and that because the assumptions are incorrect, people cannot help but leap to the wrong conclusion. Much of the problem here is lack of accurate information, not to mention a lack of genuine healthcare professionals who will touch the subject of consensual incest with a bargepole! Add to that, most people are more comfortable not having their worldview rocked, which is likely a good part of the reason it took so long for people to become generally supportive of gay marriage.

It can be quite tricky to get people to challenge these assumptions within themselves, because it is done largely on a subconscious level. All people absorb the general views and attitudes of the culture in which they live, without ever really thinking about it. Therefore, the prevailing views in society tend to be based upon whatever assumptions (rightly or wrongly) hold them up. The old saying ‘garbage in, garbage out’ applies here. Enter wrong assumptions and you get wrong conclusions out.

Sadly, challenging these assumptions underlying the prevailing attitude won’t be easy, for the very reason that the subject is so emotive for so many people. People become more irrational and closed minded the greater the emotional charge. Some people are able to see past their own gut reaction and societal programming and recognize that there are areas in which they may be wrong (including this one), but oftentimes they are so convinced of their own accuracy that it’s as if they have an automatic ‘mute’ button for all opposing opinions, even if those opinions are backed up with evidence of some kind.

All we can do is carry on doing what we’re doing, fighting the good fight and educating the public. This is easier said than done of course, but knowing where these reactions come from and challenging these assumptions is something that will make our work somewhat easier. What would however make a dramatic difference is if some REAL mental health professionals decided to study us, in countries where consensual incest is legal of course. Their findings would be beneficial in proving conclusively that consanguinamory is NOT a form of mental illness, but is a normal and natural expression of human sexuality. Until such studies are conducted, I think it’s going to be tough going trying to actually prove to people beyond reasonable doubt that there is nothing wrong with us, and we do not need fixing.

A bigot from Australia, with extra homophobia

Well, like always it’s same old shit different day, on this particular occasion we turn our eyes to an Australian politican. Let’s see what’s been written about this guy:

The Australian has reported that a WA candidate representing Pauline Hanson’s One Nation previously suggested that allowing marriage equality would lead to polygamous marriages and brothers and sisters marrying.

So basically, seeing one harmless minority get equal rights (LGBT people) must necessaily lead to other disenfranchized harmless minorites (poly and consang couples) getting equal rights too. I fail to see why this is a bad thing. Let’s not mince around the implications here, according to this idiot, if you’re not a heterosexual monogamous regular, you don’t deserve equal rights. I think I speak for us all when I call bullshit on that.

The Australian has uncovered what they describe as an “online rant” from the politician where he suggests allowing same sex couples the right to wed will lead to ““multitudinous marriage” and “sibling marriage”.

Again, why would this be problematic? In truth this is an appeal to disgust in disguise, getting possible agreement from his readers by appealing directly to their own prejudices. However I would say that a prejudice like this becomes no more respectable or rational regardless of the number of people holding it.

The candidate also suggested that countries where marriage equality has been legalised such as Canada and New Zealand must think that heterosexuality is abnormal.

Really? I am British, and gay marriage has been allowed for quite some time here, and nobody thinks of heterosexuality as ‘abnormal’ it’s just ‘what most people do’. He really should get out more and see more of the world.

In a post that now has been deleted form his blog Slater allegedly said; “legalising same sex marriage will open the door to compulsory homosexual teachings in homes, schools and churches, thereby confusing children, students and congregations because heterosexuality will not be recognised as normal”.

Teaching children not to be bigots against gay people is important, it’s about teaching them to be decent human beings and to accept peoples differences. It won’t confuse them, or make them gay. Being taught about LGBT people as part of sex ed did my generation no harm. Now, if we could get the law changed, and get not just LGBT, but polyamory and consanguinamory added into the sex ed classroom, then we would have a decent chance of ridding the world of most of this type of prejudice.

Slater told The Australian that he stood by the comments and that he was simply defending the law.

Actually no, this is called backing up a nonsensical bigoted law with more bigotry. Hopefully the Australian people will reject these comments for the bigoted nonsense they are.

As usual, the bigot never does answer WHY he thinks that LGBT rights leading to poly and consang rights is a bad thing. Perhaps he has no answer other than his personal disgust, but surely such disgust should be left at the door of parliament when it comes to allowing other people to have their human rights. In fact, I believe that failing to do so is nothing short of emotional and intellectual immaturity. When I read this, my first thought was ‘what an idiot’.

Brothers in Love

My friends, today there is a new blog on the block to tell you about… Brothers in Love. It’s under construction at the moment as you would expect, and is being made by a new KS member, Nolan. So I’d like to welcome Nolan to the team and wish him all the success in his blogging. I’d urge all of my readers to keep an eye on this new blog for updates and information, so add it to your favourites please 🙂 I’ve added it to useful links so that if anyone loses the link you can easily find it again without sifting through my old blog posts.

We are NOT powerless

The way things are in society, the veil secrecy we must live under, the court cases we see happening, the way our people seem to be attacked from almost every angle… all of these things make it appear that we’re a weak and defenceless minority and that we’re powerless to do anything about it. It’s easy to see why so many people think and feel this way, but it’s also just not true. Our apparent powerlessness is nothing more than an illusion based upon and sustained by fear.

Now don’t get me wrong, I would never recommend we en-masse come out to the public, not in the current climate anyway. However there are many things that people can do, and in fact should be doing to advance our cause:

  • Sharing links to our articles
  • Directing people from other sites (like Reddit and places like that if you suspect somebody is for real and not a fetishist) to our blogs and KS forums. If you do so, do it using the PM function otherwise the admins of those sites might consider it spam.
  • Sharing your story with others, Keith and I both do interviews.
  • Writing guest articles, I accept guest articles on my site.
  • Making youtube videos and sharing those that already exist.
  • Participate in debates and discussions online
  • Participate in media interviews anonymously when this is possible
  • Signing petitions, or perhaps even making them.
  • Making your own blog.
  • Networking with the existing activists in our cause and working as part of the team.
  • Helping people who are facing the courts.

Doing any of these things will help tremendously, more than you could imagine right now. I had no idea how much my contribution was needed until I started this journey, but now that I am up and running and seeing the positive effect my work is having on people, that’s its own reward.

Anything you do that makes another person stop and have a good rethink about their attitude has done it’s job. Any petition you sign, article you post, debate you enter, or other work you might do are all small contributions to making change happen.

With all this in mind, there is never NOTHING you can do, there is always something, even if just a little bit. Right now the movement is small, with a few people doing their bit in the background and helping out, and an even smaller number in the foreground as prominent bloggers. All in all there is currently only a tiny handful of us, however we need the support and the participation of larger numbers of people to make change as straightforward and as expedient as humanly possible.

Getting the law changed is only the beginning, we need to change the hearts and minds of the masses, and that means we must work as a large functional team. Do not look to people such as myself, Keith and Cristina and think you could never possibly do what we do, or that your work wouldn’t measure up… that’s nonsense. There is nothing special about us except that we chose to take action. When i started blogging I knew full well that I was covering topics that had already been covered by the other blogs, but you know what, it didn’t matter, because I was doing it from my angle. You would not be bound to ‘toe the party line’, but to add your own unique human perspective to a complex, sensitive and at times personal subject. So, if you want to start your own blog and network with us, I can help you with wordpress, it’s not difficult once you know what you’re doing.

You hold more power in your hands than you realize, it’s a fact. Many people are fearful of participation because of snooping legislation and the like, but we must learn to look past such fears if we are to succeed, and remove the source of that fear. Going on this journey myself has taught me one important lesson: that we can’t just sit back and wait for somebody else to do it. If everyone took the attitude of waiting for others to do the work then we would wait forever! Just like the basket of laundry, it won’t do itself. Change is not easy, I won’t lie, it’s going to take a lot of time and effort by a lot of people, but it can be done, and I believe in our community.

What I am asking you for is participation, a portion of your free time to tell the world all that you know needs to be said. I shout from the rooftops with my blog, I am consang and damn proud of it, and I want you to be too. But there needs to be more blogs, more activity and networking going on. We need MORE. As a community we deserve more, but it can only happen when more people do more. We are NOT powerless, we have just got used to giving our power away to fear. Please don’t do that, be the resistance and join us. Your people need YOU.

If you’re interested in helping out in any way, don’t hesitate to contact me on janedoeofks@protonmail.com

No, incest is NOT immoral

One of the vaguest arguments people have against consanguinamory is that it’s ‘immoral’. Yet, on what grounds are such claims being made. People use the following forms of ‘immorality’ arguments pretty often, you’d only have to look at the comments on some media articles on the subject to familiarize yourself with them, but to save you the trouble I will list the most common varieties here:

  • Unnatural therefore immoral – If these people are equating naturalness with morality, perhaps we should ask if they picked their laptop or smartphone straight from the vine as nature intended in order for them to post such drivel. Somethings ‘naturalness’ speaks nothing about it’s morality, and somethings morality speaks nothing of it’s ‘naturalness’. So really, whether incest is natural or not should have no bearing on whether or not it is considered moral or immoral. For the record, incest is also observed in the animal kingdom, so it is natural.
  • Anything against my religion is immoral – Since not all religions teach the same things (or even different denominations of the same religion – check out the wide varieties of Christianity available), and not of those differing views can be simultaneously correct, the argument collapses in on itself. While it is true that most religions forbid incest, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s immoral, just that those prohibitions were the cultural norm at the time the religious texts were written. There is a problem with defining morality with religion, and that is that it discourages independant thought and has historically lead to persecuting minorities (like gay people), and continues to oppress to this day (like us). I respect that people hold differing religious beliefs, and it’s one thing to follow a faith, but quite another to force it upon others.
  • Gross therefore immoral – The argument goes that if something is grossing people out, it must be immoral otherwise it wouldn’t be gross! As I have stated in a previous article, opinions are not arguments, and nor are they facts.

As you can see, these three main varieties offer nothing of substance, and they break down easily on scrutiny.

So, now we know what morality isn’t, we must define what it is. Immorality is doing anything which causes unnecessary and avoidable harm. Examples of immorality in the context of sexual relationships would be:

  • Cheating on your partner
  • Domestic violence or abuse
  • Rape
  • Lying

It’s not an exhaustive list, but you can see where I am coming from, these things are wrong because they have a victim. It’s most often the case that people have consang relationships WITHOUT one partner harming the other either emotionally or physically.

Now, before somebody pipes up ‘but what about the embarassment caused to the whole family if they get caught? This hurts the whole family!’… Sorry, the problem is the REACTION, not the relationships. Being embarassed or grossed out is not harm and it doesn’t make one a victim, but what society does to consang people when they are discovered, imprisoning them and making them outcasts… THAT is where the harm is. The hateful reaction to consanguinamory is immoral, consanguinamory is not.

An Open Letter to Theresa May

Dear Mrs. May,

I realize that you’re a busy woman right now with the Brexit negotiations, however there is an issue that I believe should be brought to your attention, and it is a human rights issue. Thus I believe this to be of great importance, both for the people currently affected by unjust laws, and for demonstrating that we are a truly free and tolerant society.

While the legislation currently gives equal rights to LGBT persons, a significant step in the right direction to be sure, however it does not go far enough. There are still people in the UK, and indeed the world, who are living in fear of being imprisoned because of who they love. I am speaking of ACI (adult consensual incest) couples who are not only denied the right to marry, but further denied the right to express their love in the natural way. As an activist for consanguinamory, I am telling you that this is unacceptable and is tantamount to a breach of human rights.

I realize of course that a lot of people, perhaps even yourself, are uncomfortable with the idea of incest. This is because most people have a strong Westermarck Effect which in essence is reverse sexual imprinting, which in the majority of people renders the idea of dating a close relative icky and gross. However, not everybody experiences Westermarck Effect and thus the idea is certainly not gross to every single person. In cases of Genetic Sexual Attraction, there was never any possibility of the Westermarck effect taking hold because there was a separation (perhaps due to a child being taken into care, or a divorce) and they become reunited only when both parties are adults. Up to 50% of adoptees who are reuinted with their biological relatives experience feelings of GSA. How common non-GSA (incest where there was never any separation) relationships are is currently unknown for obvious reasons.

I realize that there may be some concerns raised during our bid for equality, and I will answer those in brief here:

  1. Concerns about pedophilia – This isn’t the sort of incest we’re talking about here, I’m talking about legalizing incest between consenting adults who are considered competent to make their own choices in life. If one is old enough to star in a pornographic movie, purchase intoxicating liquer, and to fight and die for their country, then they are old enough and competent to decide whether or not incest is right for them. We as a community wholeheartedly condemn and abhor paedophilia, and any person taking advantage of persons who are underage, and as such we believe that stronger penalties should be in place for those who do sexually abuse youngsters, whether the abuser and the victim are related or not.
  2. Concerns about power imbalances – There is a perception in society that adult offspring can never consent to sex with one of their parents. On behalf of every consanguinamorous person who has ever fallen in love with a parent, I wholeheartedly state that this is complete nonsense. In most peoples adult lives, parents have quite little authority compared to say… ones boss. Now, it may be against the regulations in many companies, but if a boss has sex with an employee it’s hardly a criminal matter. Nobody would say that the employee cannot consent simply because one has on paper authority over the other at work. Furthermore nobody could argue that a poor person cannot consent to sex with a rich person. So why exactly are incest couples being held to a completely different standard to the rest of the population? They shouldn’t be, and the double-standard need abolishing.
  3. Concerns about Inbreeding – We do not deny that increased risks exist should any incest couples decide to have a child, however this in and of itself is not a sufficient reason to deny people their rights. Increased risks of congenital abnormalities exist for a wide range of other persons: women over 40, people who drink or smoke heavily, illegal drug users, people who have serious inheritable disabilities, people who must take certain medications, people who have undergone treatment for cancer as those medications reduces the viability and quality of the gametes.As you can see, this is by no means an exhaustive list by any means, but it does demonstrate my point. None of the above listed people are banned from having relationships and sex, and exercising their right to bear children. Some of the above mentioned persons will carry far higher risks than the average incest couple, thus again, we should apply the same standards to all members of society and not just those we approve of. Furthermore, many incest couples choose not to have a baby because of the increased risk. I think a better approach should be to offer genetic counselling to such couples and allow them to make this very personal choice themselves.
  4. Concerns about the impact legalization will have on society – People raised those same concerns with regards to legalizing homosexuality if you look at history, and look at how wrong they were. Those concerns are just as invalid over us as they were about gay people. A few eyebrows are going to be raised of course, and naturally in the early days there will be some incestophobic incidents, but honestly, given time the population will adjust to seeing us as a natural part of relationship diversities. The key is that we’re normal people in normal relationships that just vary a bit from what’s average. This shouldn’t be a crime.

Just consider what I have said here, because the arguments I have put forward to you should at least make you think about it. Consanguinamory is a normal and natural relationship orientation, some of us do not and cannot be happy in ‘normal’ relationships because there is an extra bond that exists for us, the family bond plus romance is all-encompassing love, so your ‘normal’ feels pretty empty to a lot of us. It’s an orientation we didn’t ask for and cannot help having. When the law denies us the right to have a consanguinamorous relationship, it denies us the right to be complete, the right to be what we really are. When we try to settle for less, it is unfair not only to us, but to the regulars we feel we must settle for. This is akin to how so many gay people used to enter heterosexual marriages only to feel empty inside. All we’re asking for is the right to be ourselves without being criminalized.

Theresa, I am asking you now, one human being to another, do the right thing and bring this up in parliament, read this letter to the MPs and the speaker, let them hear and see the suffering the current legislation is causing. I am reaching out to you, the Prime Minister, because you have the ability to be a real ally to us, and I believe that you’re a fair minded woman who wants to do the right thing for all those you govern. This is an issue that will be important hopefully in the not too distant future, and it is one that you shouldn’t play party politics with, because regardless of whether people are Tory, Labour, Liberal Democrat, UKIP or whatever else, we all need to enjoy the same human rights. This is something that effects peoples lives. Our community is relitively few in number, and most of us are too shy and afraid to say what needs to be said, which is why this letter exists.

Should you wish to discuss this with me further, you may e-mail me at janedoeofks@protonmail.com

Thank you in advance for your attention and any action you may take,

Jane Doe

Arguments that aren’t even arguments

This very issue has cropped up repeatedly these last few days when I have observed on debates about consanguinamory on facebook and elsewhere. I thought it was about time I wrote about it because it’s something that’s quite common in peoples lines of reasoning, if I can call it that.

Some people, despite appearing on the surface to be apparently of average intelligence, consistently not knowing the difference between making an argument, and stating their opinion, or even making a statement. Okay, let’s take a look at, in the most basic form, what apparently passes for an argument for the status quo these days.

‘EWWW, THAT’S GROSS!’

This is one very common ‘argument’ against consanguinamory, and yet it isn’t actually an argument at all, it’s an OPINION. Ok, time for a little thought experiment: Let’s imagine that instead of consanguinamory they were talking about ham and pineapple pizza, or neon blue hair dye. Would that be a valid basis for banning those two things? Obviously not, with regards to other peoples choices we tend to mind our own business and allow others to attend to theirs. Why should it be any different when it comes to peoples love and sex lives? If ‘It’s gross’ is an opinion when we’re talking about food and hair color, then surely it’s STILL an opinion when we’re talking about relationships and sexuality.

There is only ONE instance in which this ‘argument’ is in any way valid, and that is when it comes to the life of the one making the statement. If somebody doesn’t like to eat a certain pizza, then that’s a valid reason not to personally eat it. If somebody doesn’t like blue hair dye, again, it’s a valid reason for said person not to use it. And so, logic follows: If somebody doesn’t like the idea of consanguine relationships, then it’s a valid reason for that person not to date within their family. However, preventing others from doing so when they don’t share that aversion is like preventing pizza eating and blue hair dying just because one doesn’t like it. It’s arbitary, authoritarian and irrational. When you really strip the argument down to the bare bones you’ll find absolutely nothing of substance there.

‘But they’re RELATED’ or ‘because it’s INCEST’

And? Again, this isn’t an argument, it’s a statement. Expanded, it would read ‘related couples shouldn’t be allowed to be together because they’re related’. Now how silly does that sound, really? Let’s use the analogies in the previous examples to expand a little further on this. Imagine somebody saying ‘blue hair dye shouldn’t be allowed because it’s blue hair dye’ or ‘Pizza shouldn’t be allowed because it’s pizza’. This is the exact same argument applied again to hair dye and food. Hopefully by now, any idiot could see the logical flaw. Where exactly is the argument here? There just isn’t one!

‘People just don’t do that sort of thing’

While it’s an inaccurate statement, it’s another non-argument for logical reasons. Expanded, this means ‘It should be banned because people don’t do it’. Okay, let me see if I am understanding this correctly: we need a law in place to ban something that apparently nobody does? Such a law would be irrelevant, redundant and unnecessary from it’s inception were the statement actually true.

So let’s take another look from another angle, maybe they mean it less literally, like ‘not many people want to do it therefore it should be banned’ Logically, the number of people engaging in an activity should have no bearing on the legality of that activity.

Let’s go back to the pizza. If NOBODY ate pizza then making it illegal would be a stupid waste of time and energy, and if only a few people eat pizza, you’re trampling over the rights of those who eat it by making it illegal.

Same applies to consanguinamory: If there were no people in consanguine relationships, then the ban on incest would be irrelevant, and since a few people are, such laws are trampling over our fundamental rights as human beings. It’s nothing more than tyranny of the majority ‘just because’ and we deserve better than that.

‘That’s PERVERTED’

This is another opinion masquerading as a fact. In it’s expanded form, it says ‘related couples shouldn’t be allowed to be together because it’s perverted’, and yet they never explain exactly what they mean by ‘perverted’. Usually they mean ‘it’s gross’ which of course was the very first one on my list of non-arguments. However, it could also be taken to mean ‘unusual’ or ‘not the norm’ which is more akin to point three on the list. Something being (apparently) rare is not a cause for banning it. In either instance the ‘pervert’ label is irrelevant to whether or not the ban on incest should be there or not. Perversion is in the eye of the beholder anyway, it’s a word that means different things to different people.

 CONCLUSION:

Some people just don’t do any actual thinking before applying their fingers to the keyboard, if they did, such glaringly obvious flaws in their ‘reasoning’, if we can be so generous as to call it that, would be immediately apparent to them.

On another level this also serves to remind us of just how weak some of the ‘arguments’ used by our opponents actually are. This is very important, for it tells us that this battle for our rights is not only winnable, but that our win is inevitable in the long run.

A letter from Mumbai

Well, I had a nice little gem in my inbox today from a young man in Mumbai who went from conservative to supportive just by reading Keith’s Blog. It proves how minds and hearts can be changed by the power of words.  Presumably he is a visitor of mine too since he contacted me. Anyway, here is his message: