Please take this survey even if you’ve never had a consent violation. We want to know what are your power exchange and sexual identities? Are you “out” about being kinky? How often do you go to BDSM groups and online communities?
NCSF will use these results to help perform its advocacy, such as helping law enforcement, prosecutors and health care professionals understand the experiences of kinky people and provide better quality service.
Only takes 5-20 minutes to complete!
This survey is anonymous and your privacy is guaranteed by Survey Monkey, a secured survey hosting website. NCSF does not have access to any identifying information about the participants.
Last year, our Ethics and Religion Talk panel weighed in on whether sexting, or sending explicit photos of oneself via text message, was akin to adultery.
Now, the panel weighs in on whether two consenting, married adults who are "swingers" engage in such a lifestyle with other consenting adults are adulterers.
I am fully aware that private intimate behavior between consenting adults may be legal or illegal, depending on the jurisdiction.
However, it is not the intent of this column or its panelists to analyze or explain the law. In fact, often we don't care whether the behavior we are asked about is legal or illegal. We wonder whether, according to our religious/ethical system, it is moral.
It might be illegal in some or all states — nonetheless, we might be of the opinion that it is moral; or, as in the case of this week's question, it might be legal (at least in most states/locations). Nonetheless, we might be of the opinion that it is immoral.
This week's question is:
"If a married couple engages in a 'swinging' lifestyle with other consenting married couples, is this considered adultery?"
Howard Earle, Jr., the senior pastor of the New Hope Baptist Church, responds:
"Scripture explicitly teaches that sex is reserved for a man and woman who are married. To reduce marriage to strictly a relationship between the husband and wife only is a critical mistake. Genesis states that the two (Adam and Eve) shall become one flesh. God joins a man and a woman together first and foremost for His glory. The vow that a couple makes to each other is first a promise to God. Therefore, any deviation from His standard is a violation of His Law and regarded as an insult. Because God's standard does not make allowance for our consent in this matter, a swinging lifestyle is adulterous behavior."
Sandra Nikkel, Ministry Coordinator of the Grand Rapids East Classis and Pastor of the multicultural Ministry at Eastern Avenue Christian Reformed Church, responds:
"Wow, I have a hard time answering this question. Even though I know that this ‘swinging’ lifestyle really exists I don’t see how this kind of activity benefits anyone in the long run —those who are involved or those who are close to the ones involved in it. I can’t even imagine how children would feel to know that their parents are involved in this lifestyle and what about parents, siblings, etc....
Editor's note:Janet W. Hardy, a writer, editor and consultant, has published 11 books, including the best-selling, "The Ethical Slut: A Practical Guide to Polyamory, Open Relationships and Other Adventures." She has taught workshops about alternative sexualities and relationships all over the world.
(CNN) -- I grew up in the early 1960s in an affluent suburb on the East Coast. Every child I knew went home to a family that looked like mine: a mom at home waiting for us, and a dad who showed up a few hours later in time for dinner.
How tempting it is to remember such households as an ideal and universal norm. But they were rarely ideal, and they were never universal.
Let's not discuss the stresses that affected those nuclear families. Let's just talk about the innumerable people who, by virtue of race, background, health or circumstance, could not -- or did not want to -- live in such families.
Instead, they lived in single-parent households, in households with two men or two women, in extended families of grandparents and aunts and grown siblings, in households where multiple adults pooled money and skills to make ends meet, and in many other configurations.
Back then, it never occurred to the people I knew to call those configurations "families." Today, in a more tolerant era, that old standard of the nuclear family is still encoded in our laws and our tax code, as well as in the antiquated and judgmental phrase "family values."
Among my own circle of acquaintances, I hold many "alternative families" close to my heart:
-- A man and two women who have been raising their two children together from infancy through high school.
-- Three men who have shared a loving household for nearly 20 years.
-- A "core couple," married for many decades, who have consistently surrounded themselves with long-term, live-in lovers.
-- Two couples who share a duplex and a busy and intermingled sex life.
-- A long-partnered gay man and lesbian woman who together brought a third, lesbian woman into their household because the female half of the pair missed that part of her life.
There are as many configurations of genders, ages and numbers as you can imagine. These are families as surely as any family you've welcomed into your neighborhood. They share property, raise children, tend to their homes and communities.
Last month, in a case involving the plural family portrayed on the reality show "Sister Wives," a Nevada judge overturned a ban against cohabitation, enabling consenting adults to form whatever style of household meets their desires and needs. He refused, however, to overturn the part of the law that banned plural marriages.
Most Americans, when they think of plural marriage, associate it with the one-male, multifemale households of a rebel offshoot of Mormonism and of some contemporary Muslim cultures -- popularly known as "polygamy" (many spouses of both sexes), but more accurately called "polygyny" (many wives). However, these polygynous marriages represent only a fraction of the ways in which adults form families.
Many people rightly feel some concern about religious polygyny's history of abuse and nonconsent and might feel that anti-plural marriage laws are necessary to prevent such exploitation. However, strong laws already exist against forcing anyone into sex or marriage of any kind -- vigorous enforcement would surely suffice to protect the unwilling in a plural marriage recognized under the law.
More problematic, of course, are issues such as child custody, inheritance, hospital visitation, etc., when more than two parties are involved. It is clear that the current legal structure of marriage cannot readily accommodate this problem. For that reason, the Nevada judge's ruling was probably correct, at least for now.
One solution for the future, though, might be to designate "marriage" as a social institution with no legal standing and to create "civil union" as a legally recognized subtype of business partnership, available to anyone who is willing to make the appropriate commitments. ...
A woman claimed "swinging" was promoted at the camp in Davidsonville but the camp denied the allegations and a court dismissed her case.
Five months after she hunkered down in Cabin 13 at Maryland Health Society—a nudist park in Davidsonville—a 53-year-old woman was officially evicted from the property and ordered to remove all belongings, according to online court records.
According to its Facebook Page, the Maryland Health Society, or MaHeSo, has been in Davidsonville for nearly 80 years, sitting on 96 acres of wooded lands adjacent to the Patuxant River. The page also boasts family-friendly features like a pool and a "kiddie park" at the site.
However, according to Catherine Holmes, 53, MaHeSo dropped her membership and locked her out of her cabin when she raised concerns that the camp was promoting "swingers," reported Health Medicine Network. The MaHeSo board of directors denied Holmes' claims that sexual practices of any kind were promoted at the park.
Holmes continued to sneak into the cabin through a window. She told The Capital Gazette that she barricaded herself in the cabin in protest of what she alleged was a "swinger" lifestyle at the park, and to get money from MaHeSo for improvements Holmes made on the cabin.
The case was resolved Thursday when the courts dismissed Holmes' case "with prejudice," according to online court records. In a separate ruling, Holmes was also prohibited from destroying or defacing MaHeSo property and evicted from Cabin 13. ...
There’s something vaguely primal – and sensual – about having your hands tied to the frame of the bed, the weight of your partner holding your legs apart. Being worked over by someone aggressively emboldened by your own submission, you build a bond of trust.
A normal hookup can be disappointingly guarded. Both parties, afraid to scare the other off or cross an unspoken line, can make it more like a business transaction than a sexual bond.
Nobody wants that. And I think this campus is thirsty for something better.
It’s up to a group of kinky kiddos among us to save GW from its sexual staleness. Scanning the posts of “GWU Secrets” – our wannabe “Post Secret” Facebook group – it’s clear that this campus has an appetite for occasional (or incessant) bondage, discipline and sadomasochism.
Regular columnists analyze campus culture to work out problems and propose solutions. As The Hatchet’s new sex columnist – I’m a gay male undergraduate and a bottom, by the way – I have a similar charge. And it’s clear to me that we need to do more to satiate our kinks.
At a school with more than 400 student groups, not one of them is related to kinky sex. Other universities have already beat us to the punch. Harvard has one called “Harvard College Munch.” Iowa State University students founded a club dedicated to bondage back in 2003, funded by the student government, no less.
Columbia, Tufts, MIT and Yale all boast some kind of kinky club, though some of these orgs exist in a quiet, unthreatening, gray zone lacking official recognition.
So I ask: Why don’t we have a student organization for those of us devoted to or curious about BDSM?
My guess is because half the student body thinks it will run for U.S. Senate in 2032, while the other half is hoping for an internship next semester that requires a security clearance. We wouldn’t want the potential boss man to know we actually like being whipped and treated like a slave.
GW, despite having stellar progressive policies toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues, lacks a real sexual counterculture. Productions of “Hair” aside, GW fits a heteronormative mold that eschews the more deviant kinds of sexual behavior found in BDSM.
But there’s another problem – good old fashioned social stigma.
Even the handsomest, smoothest male suggesting bondage to a potential hookup could result in terrifying consequences for our kinky hero. It doesn’t matter if he would only act on this urge if it was consensual – the optics of his failed suggestion can be damning.
Women, on the other hand, would likely experience a different hesitation. A public reveal could mean slut shaming and character assassinations. ...
...The entire kink community, including Kardinal Kink, functions under as much anonymity as possible. Many fear the impact being outed would have on their career and relationships.
Many understand and respect our anonymity, but so few question why it is necessary and what negative impact this legacy of silence has on individuals.
Kardinal Kink is just what it sounds like: a Stanford group for all things kink, and a two-pronged effort to create a support system for Stanford students to safely explore kink and to campaign for the legitimacy of kink.
There seem to be more kink-identified people than queer or LGBT-identified people, but one can major in Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies and never read an article about kink by someone kink-identified.
There are no resources at Vaden or the LGBT-CRC that address kink. There are no classes on campus that explore kink as anything more than a footnote. This isn’t Stanford’s fault in particular, but rather evidence of a widespread tendency for “legitimate” organizations to not acknowledge kink, for fear of being associated with it.
There is so little research into kink that we hardly even know what demographics it reflects, let alone the problems it faces. One exception, a survey by the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom, found that a third of kink-identified people, including the heavily closeted, report experiencing discrimination based on their involvement with kink.
More than half of that discrimination came from medical professionals and a quarter from government or police officials, which implies that these much-needed services systematically fall short of serving this population’s needs.
This has a concrete, negative impact: Isolation and a lack of resources puts many newcomers to kink at a high risk of abuse. In turn, there are few resources available for those who have their consent broken in an unconventional circumstance. While the kink community tries to enforce consent and offer resources and medical knowledge to those who need it, it should be the job of the police and relevant professionals.
I am not calling for a large-scale civil rights movement like the gay rights movement, but am asking the local community — Stanford as a university and as a campus — to respect kink as a gender and sexuality minority in academia and in services on campus. Although kink is currently dismissed as an individual’s crazy sexual tastes, it represents a world of enthusiastic consent that encourages you to craft the relationships and live the experiences that truly satisfy you; a world that must function in silence and in isolation.
While 2013 was a year of major victories for same-sex marriage in America, a controversial court ruling at the end of the year addressed another thorny marriage question: a federal judge in Utah struck down a portion of the state's polygamy ban. Many conservatives saw vindication of their fears that gay marriage would lead to legalized polygamy. In fact, the decision is limited in scope and does not actually change marriage law. But it also highlights a push for the acceptance of non-monogamous relationships that could change marriage -- and not for the better.
The ruling, which involves a fundamentalist Mormon man and his four "sister wives," does not require the state to validate multiple marriages: Legally, the husband only has one wife. It simply says such arrangements cannot be criminalized, particularly in a way that discriminates on the basis of religion (so that a man can live with several women and not face legal problems unless he calls them his wives in a spiritual marriage).
The Utah case represents a traditional, patriarchal version of polygamy. But there are also egalitarian, socially liberal subcultures in this country that embrace alternatives to monogamy: open marriage and polyamory (multiple intimate relationships with everyone's consent). These lifestyles have been gaining visibility, thanks in part to the discussions of same-sex marriage and new frontiers of tolerance.
Last August, Salon.com published an article titled "My Two Husbands," whose author -- living with her longtime husband and her boyfriend -- lamented widespread prejudice against families such as hers. A month later, Slate. com ran a pseudonymous piece by a man bemoaning the hardships of "the polyamory closet."
While the polyamorists often liken their cause to gay rights, the parallel fails in key ways.
First, in seeking marriage equality, gays could make a strong case that they simply wanted the same thing as heterosexuals. It would be much harder to make that argument for non-monogamous marriage. Sexual difference as a feature of marriage waned in importance due to the move away from strictly gender-based roles. But the idea of marriage as an exclusive union of two people is built into Western culture. (Indeed, monogamy was arguably the basis for the shift from patriarchal authoritarianism to affectionate partnership that eventually made same-sex marriage feasible.) The legal benefits of two-person marriage would be almost impossible to replicate with multiple partners.
The non-monogamists mostly want cultural acceptance rather than legal reform. But even that is fraught with problems. ...
Robert "Bob" Bashara, 56, the Grosse Pointe Park real estate investor, landlord and BDSM enthusiast accused of killing his wife, Jane Bashara, 56, in January of 2012, returns to Wayne County Circuit Court for his final pretrial conference Thursday.
Bashara is currently imprisoned for soliciting the murder of Joseph Gentz, the handyman who admits he assisted Bashara with the killing for which he's serving a minimum of 17 years in prison.
Wayne County Circuit Judge Vonda Evans will determine, among other things, a trial date and whether Bashara will be provided a non-Internet-capable computer with which to review thousands of discovery documents in the murder case against him.
The hearing begins at 9 a.m.
Prosecutors charged Bashara with first-degree murder, soliciting murder, obstruction of justice, witness bribery or intimidation, perjury and felonious use of a firearm.
First-degree murder carries a mandatory sentence of life in prison.
Gentz said Bashara repeatedly solicited him to kill his wife and on Jan. 24, 2012 threatened him with a gun if he didn't carry out the deed. Gentz said he strangled Jane Bashara in the family's garage before he and Bob Bashara loaded the body in the back seat of Jane Bashara's SUV. Police found Jane Bashara in her vehicle parked in a desolate Detroit alley the following day.
Nearly 20 witnesses over the period of a week testified in September on behalf of prosecutors during the preliminary examination in the trial against Bob Bashara.
Testimony indicated Bashara had a kinky, porn-addled and philandering lifestyle that he kept separate from his wife and two children.
It is through a website catering to BDSM, which stands for bondage and discipline, sadism and masochism, Bashara met his mistress — whom he referred to as his "slave" — Rachel Gillett, in 2009. She called him "Master Bob."
One of their first meetings took place in what Bashara referred to as "the dungeon," a converted space beneath a property he owned and used for sexual role play. ...