Here is a helpful hint: if people regularly face legal discrimination for their (consensual, adult-human-oriented) sexuality, they belong under the queer umbrella. (a short thread follows) https://twitter.com/dollswhosquirt/status/1332730713871880193 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
-
"But Adrienne," you say, out of genuine ignorance and not because you're a bigot, "In what sense do asexuals face legal discrimination?" When i immigrated to Canada, I HAD TO PROMISE THE QUEEN THAT I WOULD REGULARLY FUCK MY SPOUSE.
4 replies 37 retweets 96 likesShow this thread -
I mean, i didn't have to promise her DIRECTLY, but i had to swear on official government paperwork with her name right there on it that i have "conjugal relations" with my spouse and would continue to do so for a period of at least 2 years after the date on the paperwork.
1 reply 4 retweets 57 likesShow this thread -
Literally if i were asexual (i'm not, which is why i can tell this as if it's a funny anecdote and not life-or-death discriminatory fuckery) the Fuck Police could DEPORT MY ASS FOR HAVING A FAKE MARRIAGE.
2 replies 12 retweets 67 likesShow this thread -
It's not just immigration, either. In many, many legal systems, the entire CONCEPT of "what is a legal marriage" is premised on people who fuck each other, or at least intend to fuck each other. If you don't fuck? Your marriage can be declared invalid!
2 replies 4 retweets 70 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @iridienne
Yup, marriage is construed under the common law as consisting of the three Cs (consummation, cohabitation, commingling of finances)
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @iridienne
If any one of these is missing, it's grounds to challenge the marriage is invalid for the purpose of annulment etc, if all three are then the annulment is pretty much guaranteed
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @iridienne
I admit I've thought about what a more modern, progressive definition of marriage would be Personally I'd be fine with it just being the last C -- having a shared bank account, being responsible for each other's debts But others would say that's very neoliberal of me
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @iridienne
"Reducing the sacred contract of marriage to just being a special case of starting an S-corporation" *shrug*
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @iridienne
Most people's expectation is the second two Cs -- "moving in together" is a huge part of people's image of what "marriage" should be about But idk, I saw a documentary about a married couple who lived in separate apartments and seemed to be doing really well
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
The documentary was about this ironic situation where finances were forcing the two of them to move in together for the first time after like *ten years* of marriage and their fears that this would end up ruining their relationship and driving them to divorce
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.