WEIRD: Wife of man marrying his mother called her ‘mummy girlfriend’ before...

WEIRD: Wife of man marrying his mother called her ‘mummy girlfriend’ before discovering they were having sex

1

The ex wife of a person who intends to marry and have children along with his biological mother called her ‘mummy girlfriend’ as she grew suspicious about their relationship. Ben Ford, 32, was reunited with his mother Kim West, 51, in December 2013, nearly 30 years after she gave him up.

After experiencing an ‘immediate bond’ they started a sexual relationship which resulted in Ben leaving his wife – named as Victoria.

The couple insist their ‘incredible’ sex life is not incest, but ‘Genetic Sexual Attraction’, a term used after assembly as adults for relatives who feel sexual attraction for every other.

Vicky told Real life magazine how Ben’s wife, then 22, became concerned regarding the relationship before launching a ‘hysterical’ rant when she was told they were having sex.

She said: “(Victoria) was welcoming, yet I couldn’t warm to her. I felt a growing sense of competition and when Ben touched her I felt jealous.

“I became even more aware of the fact that (Victoria) thought I was spending too much time with Ben. She would constantly call him when we were together.

“Eventually, he admitted she was giving him grief about spending time with me. ‘She calls you mummy girlfriend’ he said.”

  • GreggKB

    Let me start by saying that what this mother and son are doing is absolutely repulsive and disgusting, and I am absolutely opposed to it.

    H O W E V E R,

    If you redefine marriage to include homosexuals (which five lawyers in America have done via Obergefell vs. Hodges), then you cannot oppose:

    1) Polygamy

    2) Homosexual incest (this eliminates society’s legitimate concern regarding the effects of inbreeding on children)

    3) Heterosexual incest (at least if certain conditions — such as sterilization — are met to eliminate inbreeding issues)

    Based on the logic used to justify same-sex “marriage”, on what grounds can society now object to these other alternative forms of “marriage”? After all, as others have said, “who are we to stop the ability of two consenting adults to love whomever they want to love”? By the way, I hate that argument; I love my son in such deep and total way that it rivals my love for my wife, yet if my wife were to die I would not consider my inability to marry my son to in any way hinder my ability to love him.

    Those who support same-sex “marriage” but oppose these three things (and there are others) are guilty of the same thing they falsely accuse those of us who are opposed to same-sex “marriage” of, whether it be bigotry or narrow-mindedness or whatever.

    Judge Jeffrey Sutton, of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a ruling on November 6th that upheld the same-sex “marriage” bans in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee, correctly noted “If it is constitutionally irrational to stand by the man-woman definition of marriage, it must be constitutionally irrational to stand by the monogamous definition of marriage”. This logic is unassailable.

    In summary, if you are for gay “marriage” but against this, you are an utter hypocrite.