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!
-
Show 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
Some people may fail to achieve one of these things, but it takes a true, pink-streaked, procyon rube to fail the hat trick
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @Nymphomachy @arthur_affect
In Canada, for immigration purposes at least, the definition also includes monogamy. "Open marriage" is, we were told in no uncertain terms, invalid according to the Canadian Immigration Bureau.
2 replies 2 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @iridienne @arthur_affect
Yeah well The insistence that I marry my spouse was made in the context of Trump having gotten elected and me wanting to write out medical/mental health Powers of Attorney to personal friends since I didn't trust my mother I just wanted to push my biomom out of any emergencies
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Back when I actually liked this person, I bemoaned the absence of a reliable system of "lateral adoption", e.g., formally and legally committing to being somebody's sibling, with all the emergency powers that entails Basically the complete self-determination of one's family
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Like there's not really any good reason why I should be eternally connected in a bureaucratic sense to my bioparents I should be able to completely define who the people relevant to my life are and who I consent to have any involvement in it But the tyranny continues
3 replies 0 retweets 13 likes -
In my case even "lateral adoption" would have been disastrous because I rapidly came to utterly despise both of the people I would have "adopted" four years ago But my experiences also taught me a lot about how bullshit our mentality of what is and isn't a "sham marriage" is
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Before we even said vows I was persuaded that in fact, we wouldn't be a sham, because we genuinely loved each other (possibly true!) and they felt deeply protective of me and were sincerely thinking of me as a life partner So, really, they entered into a sham and I didn't
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes
Yes well It does suck -- I strongly agree that it sucks -- that we don't have any better proxy for "Okay but do you really MEAN it?" than "Okay well did they let you touch their genitals?" And yet it does feel sometimes like some kind of physical test of good faith is warranted
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @iridienne
Yeah we basically live in a world where the prioritization of your needs as a human being is dependent on your ability to prove that somebody wants to have sex with you If nobody is currently interested in doing that then you can pretty much live and die on the backburner
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Bleak, and accurate. Sigh.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
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.