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
-
-
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 -
I was genuinely in love with my "partner". Everybody could see it. I literally would tear up talking about them. So, like. Idk. It was like Schrodinger's Sham Marriage. It was real or fake depending on who was observing it.
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Anyway idk If two people enter into a sham marriage and then they decide they're genuinely in love (a la many stupid romance plots), was it really a sham marriage? If they truly love each other and intended to, but then never got around to the Three Cs, was it ever a real one?
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
The entire system of marriage is really fucking sketchy about the mens rea, frankly
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @Nymphomachy @iridienne
Well when you make the vows they traditionally go through a big long speech about asking you if you're really serious
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @arthur_affect @iridienne
well, sure, but the answer is orthogonal to its verity
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Nymphomachy @iridienne
Sure And when you go for an annulment you can usually use mens rea as an immediate argument for it ("We were drunk in Vegas", "I was having a psychotic episode", "I was financially vulnerable and being coerced"), etc
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
They only go in for the more invasive investigation of what your marriage is actually like if the question of its sham-ness is contested
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.