As You Like It - Men Becoming Women

In the USA there are no Federal statutes on what constitutes marriage or the requirements there of. Requirements differ from state to state.


I don't know what state you live in, but in my state there is no intercourse requirement for the marriage to be legal. I strongly doubt any state has such a requirement, if there were it would be deemed unenforceable as an invasion of privacy (and consequently unconstitutional, Forth Amendment).


To revisit this, you are absolutely correct. It's not the vows or the ceremony (depending upon your locality), it's the piece of paper that gets signed.

How old do you think the Constitution is? It's valid law, nonetheless, whether you like it or not. As I said, don't argue it on the internet or start scouring Wikipedia. Just call up a lawyer and pretend you're a newly married wife and your husband won't "know you" in the Biblical sense (not that hard to imagine), and see what he says.

It says the marriage is legal even WITHOUT consummation. If your husband rapes you on your wedding night and you've filed all your papers, you're still married to him. You can file charges against him, but you're still stuck with him until annulment or divorce has been granted.

I thought an annulment had a time limit? Or evidence of lack of intercourse? Or do both parties simply agree that it was a mistake to marry and "annul" teh marriage with no legal and binding restitution? I am just asking coz I always think annulment is a vague term. For example, I have a planned pre-nup agreement that I organized long ago in case I ever found a man I wanted to marry (haha!) but if we had a horrid first week and he was a bastard would teh annulment kick in before teh divorce papers were served?

No, it doesn't. Please look up the legal definition of CONSENT within marriage please. And I said the legal definition of consent within marriage, not just the word consent. You have a computer -- use it!

Or this may help, though still a bit archaic in it's terminology

CONSUMMATION OF MARRIAGE - The first time that the husband and wife co-habit together, i.e. engage in intercourse, after the ceremony of marriage has been performed, is thus called.

The marriage, when otherwise legal, is complete without this; for it is a maxim of law, borrowed from the civil, law, that consensus, non concubitus, facit nuptias.

Or to give you a modern definition: CONSUMMATION OF MARRIAGE: The first time that the husband and wife consent to engage in sexual intercourse, the marriage is thus considered complete, and is now thus called a marriage.
--b--

You have a computer, study it. And I never said Wikipedia. I think Wikipedia is crap. I said Encarta. I never ever said Wikipedia.

Adios.

I just have a question which is quicker than using computer - when you get married does any length of time you co-habited with your partner become null and void? You know, common law?

Marriage is a civil union, and as such it falls under civil law and they vary from state to state, particularly filing laws and time limits for filing. One of the misconceptions about annulment is that some people think you can get one overnight. Annulment can be obtained for many reasons, but none of them happen arbitrarily. There must be a ruling and, as in divorce, a period of finalization. You must also meet very specific criteria to qualify for annulment, and you must usually hold residence in the state you apply in.

Another reason for annulment is impotence, and I think this point is where Awavyn gets confused and makes her misguided leaps of logic from: you can annul your husband for impotence, but consummating the marriage sexually confers no validity whatsoever on the legal STATE of marriage. That validity is decided by other means. Plainly, the law cares only if you DON'T have sex, not if you do.

Common law marriage does not exist in any of the Unites States any more though I think California have patrimony? However, I'd say most have adopted domestic partnerships in California and patrimony may no longer exist. I'm not up to date on that one tho I doubt patrimony exists. It was replaced no doubt by domestic partnerships.

In PA they do not recognize new Common law marriages, only ones from before 2005. I expect most states went this way.

A wife consents to her marriage when she applies for a license and signs the marriage certificate. Afterward, if it's found that she (or he) was coerced into consenting, that is fraud and grounds for annulment. It has nothing to do with sex. Consummation, as stated here below:

CONSUMMATION OF MARRIAGE - The first time that the husband and wife co-habit together, i.e. engage in intercourse, after the ceremony of marriage has been performed, is thus called.

The marriage, when otherwise legal, IS COMPLETE WITHOUT THIS ; for it is a maxim of law, borrowed from the civil, law, that consensus, non concubitus, facit nuptias.

- has no bearing on the legality of the union. I think you are just seeing the word "consensus" and hopping on it without understanding the terms that follow it. I'll try to explain:

consensus, non concubitus, facit nuptias.

Translation: consent/agreement (consensus) makes the law, not coition (concubitas) makes marriage (facit nuptias).

And since you seem to need pictures and hand-signals to get a simple point, here's an official Legistlative Guide on Marriage in PDF from from the State of Iowa, where it states plainly, "Nuptias consensus non concubitus facit (consent, not intercourse, makes marriage )"

http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Central/Guides/marriage.pdf

You can't get much more man/woman only than Iowa, boy howdy. Have fun with that.

I have it correct and tried my best to explain it to you. Can't do much more than that.

Common law marriage exists in 11 states in the USA, including the District of Columbia.

You're GOOD at being wrong! Keep it up!

Or here's an idea, you could open Encarta or use your computer. You're more fun when you spout half-arsed factoids you picked up from Wikipedia and chat rooms, but hey, don't put yourself out for me, Chuckie.

So looonely under the bridge, isn't it?

Let me translate every post you have made here into simple English before I get back to my very very GAY activities on SL:

You: "I'm right and I won't see it any other way. I am utterly blinded. Even when plain legal evidence is shoved beneath my nose, I can just close my eyes and go neener neener boo boo!"

Happy now? You're welcome to the bone, dearie. Enjoy. Right now I have a handsome, dedicated and loving man on my couch wanting some cuddles and naughty poseballs, so you're on your own.

Shenanigans! I call shenanigans!

We're not talking about a sexual relationship, or a pixel-bashing relationship, or anything where any kind of penis or corresponding part ever comes up (metaphorically) even in conversation.

Or, do you really think that it's impossible to be friends with someone without that relationship becoming sexual?

Really?

Because that's the only way I can see this making any kind of sense at all.

And, well, the '60s are calling and they want their fetishes back.

Odd, you sound like the kind of person who was taking the opposite definition of "sexual intercourse" when President Clinton was involved.

And speaking of which, what makes you think that all gay men are into anal intercourse? And how is that an option for lesbians?

And answer my bloody question about why you believe guys play females on SL.

A guy will often talk differently (warmer/ softer/ gentler/ nicer) to a girl than a guy. So it's annoying to talk sweet nothing to a girl only to find out later that she's got a beard and big sweaty balls. UGH GROSS!!

The problem that people outside the US have understanding politics in the US is that you have to understand that both the major political parties in the US are conservative. There hasn't been a progressive party in the US for at least as long as I've been old enough to be aware of politics.

So you're really saying that you can't have a conversation with a woman without flirting with her?

i'm fine with my mom.

I'll take that as a "yes".

And the ugly ones.

Pep (What would you talk to them for otherwise?)

Are you TRYING to turn me on?

jealous.

put a dress on and i'll whisper sweet nothings to you.

Some of us aren't quite that shallow, but we do draw a big thick line at guys and animals. Although I have been known to warm to a big balloon with a woman's face on it.

Thanks Argent - taht really is the point of this thread and deserves some consideration. There's something about men wanting to feel even a little of what it means to be a woman. Even if a few explore it here it's a good thing. And being a woman is a lot more than us having sex with some nasty-minded chauvinist who has prolly never known what love really means. It's about seeing teh world from a different set of values. it would definitely do some men good on this thread to become a woman even for a week. Just to see how attitudes impact a person.

I bet teh first tiem a "man-woman" is called "a dirty little b***h or "stupid cow" he may have second thoughts about talking to women (even here) with such disrespect. Then he can read a few pieces of real literature on teh topic liek "'Tis Pity She's a Whore" and Wollstonecroft's "A Vindication on teh Rights of Women". Might do him good.

I have a feeling that men are attracted to being women because women may have more options in sl than they do. I think there is a genuine REAL move towards a female intellectual "class" in reality. A friend is taking a course at university (not a women's lit course) and told me that there are 23 women and ONE man in teh class. So, I think we are becoming more dominant as time passes. It's a natural progression I think.

I may be cauterized and screamed at for this next comment but so many younger men have prolly been raised by a single mother so they are naturally inclined to feel more comfortable with women and as a woman on sl. That is not a comment about being gay. Straight men raised by women are more verbal and sensitive, I find. Most straight men here are overly-butch. They prolly are squat and timid creatures in real and just have to belch and demean women here coz they feel demeaned in real every time they see a successful woman. For each type of man, SL provides a chance to express themselves in a safe environment.

And Shakespeare's As You Like It is about gender-conflicts. How can a boy be attracted to what at first appears to be a boy but is actually a girl? Why ar etwo girls drawn to each other? Shakespeare had his own "SL" - his imagination