Jump to content

LadyC

Administrator
  • Content Count

    1,995
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    116

LadyC last won the day on October 27

LadyC had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

202 Excellent

About LadyC

  • Rank
    Politically Incorrect Old Bat

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Texas

Recent Profile Visitors

6,793 profile views
  1. LadyC

    Confused

    taylor, you're welcome for me taking the time. i do want you to consider though that perhaps the reason you can't refuse is because the excitement of NOT refusing is more than you can handle. true love, in every sense of the world, is about doing what is right for the other person. giving in to her sexually is not really serving her best interest, is it?
  2. LadyC

    Confused

    I doubt she could be charged with anything. She's the minor, you are the responsible party. It may sound insane, but even thought "she started it", in the eyes of the law here in the states, she could not legal consent to any sexual activity. So let's consider your other question. Are you (and she) even straight for doing this. My guess is that you are probably both straight, but that's only my guess. MY opinion is that our culture, the media, and whatever, has so "normalized" abnormal behavior that it has left an entire generation just like you... confused. Just like your username indicates, and just as you have expressed twice in this thread. I know that society (and many people here on this forum, even) wants to destroy the notion that sexual experimentation outside of the marriage bed in a same-sex union is abnormal, but it is. There is a reason that God prohibits certain types of relationships. And it's not because He wants to stifle us. Rather, it's because He wants us to experience sex the way HE intended it to be. Beautiful, nurturing, intimate, and life-long. Sex outside of those boundaries is a cheap imitation of His most precious gift to us. Now, I say this while fully acknowledging that I was promiscuous when I was younger. But here's the thing. With age comes hindsight. And although I am very happy in my marriage and will be celebrating 20 years in January, I have struggled my entire life with THAT aspect of my marriage being as fulfilling as I know it should be. Not because my husband isn't good enough, but because there are so many images and memories in my head that I struggle to keep turned off so that I can enjoy giving myself 100% to the man I'm devoted to. I've never experimented with another woman, but just like you and everybody else here, I've seen images that have stuck in my head. In my younger years, those images were pretty much limited to pornography viewing. For your generation though, it has been brought into the mainstream media and you can't escape it. And then society pushes this agenda that makes young people feel guilty of bigotry and phobias if they don't swing both ways. Don't let society teach you what is right and what isn't. Every society throughout history has been full of screwed up agendas, and our current one is no exception.
  3. LadyC

    Confused

    i don't know about where you are, but in america, yes, it is statutory rape and is a criminal offense. we're not just talking jail time, we're talking a lifetime of having to be publically registered as a sex offender, which limits how close you can live to schools, how much distance you must maintain from any public playground, and a whole host of other things. not just for a few years, but for the rest of your life. i suppose you should be glad she's the one in america and not you.
  4. LadyC

    Situation right now

    when i was 18, i thought of 27 year olds as "old men". maybe you just need to be patient and let her grow up a little more. at 18, she's still relatively new to the whole concept of relationships.
  5. LadyC

    Confused

    is it wrong? yes. on SO many levels. let's just start with the fact that she is FOURTEEN and you're 23! even though you keep saying you were a willing participant, you lay the responsibility squarely on her shoulders for initiating the kissing every time. who's the adult here? get your hormones under control. she is just a CHILD. it doesn't matter if she started it, you've got nearly a decade of experience when it comes to controlling your impulses. at least you should have, anyway. do you understand that you could go to prison for having this kind of relationship with her?
  6. LadyC

    NOT SURE if I should

    damaged, you're a grown man. she's a grown woman. at this age (and i'm also at "this" age), women aren't interested in wasting a lot of time playing games. especially games like getting buzzed just to ease some of the awkward tension. seriously, you need to man up and just tell her you'd like to take her out without the liquid courage, and be willing to risk her rejection. THAT will show her that you're sincere, and that you're willing to be vulnerable. she's far more likely to give you a chance that way.
  7. LadyC

    1st cousins

    I read that 2nd article the other day and did a little digging. It's late now but if I remember right, the guy was already in legal trouble and they used this to compound the charges against him or something.
  8. LadyC

    1st cousins

    kc, isn't there a way to bookmark this topic within the forum so i can find it easily ten years from now?
  9. LadyC

    1st cousins

    it's pretty insane since prior to 2005, texas allowed first cousins to marry. they can't go back and charge people who legally married in the state of texas with a crime after the fact. (ex post de facto?) it's also insane because if you'll remember a few years back, sodomy laws were challenged in texas and taken off the books for the simple fact that it was an unconstitutional violation of privacy to legislate was takes place between consenting adults within the privacy of their own home. from an article about the court rulings on lawrence v. texas: (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Lawrence-v-Texas) Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions. He (Justice Anthony Kennedy) questioned the way in which Justice Byron White, who authored the majority opinion in Bowers, (referencing Bowers v. Hardwick, a 1986 case in Geogia) had framed the central issue of the case—as whether the Constitution “confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy”—and asserted that White’s formulation “discloses the Court’s own failure to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake.” The very wording “demeans the claim of the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse,” he wrote. (clarification and emphasis mine) It seems to me that any cousin couple who are legally wed either in texas prior to 2005, or in another state where such marriage is recognized as legal, could find some attorney that is smart enough to use the Lawrence V. Texas case as precedent, since the US Supreme Court ruled that texas could not invade the privacy of a couple in their bedroom. now... let's move on to the actual statutes in texas. i must point out that i am NOT an attorney and that any commentary i provide on the following is just my personal uneducated grasp of what it's trying to say. i'll put my commentary in red. the entire family code can be found at https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/SDocs/FAMILYCODE.pdf SUBCHAPTER B. PUBLIC POLICY Sec. 1.101. EVERY MARRIAGE PRESUMED VALID. In order to promote the public health and welfare and to provide the necessary records, this code specifies detailed rules to be followed in establishing the marriage relationship. However, in order to provide stability for those entering into the marriage relationship in good faith and to provide for an orderly determination of parentage and security for the children of the relationship, it is the policy of this state to preserve and uphold each marriage against claims of invalidity unless a strong reason exists for holding the marriage void or voidable. Therefore, every marriage entered into in this state is presumed to Statute text rendered on: 9/7/2018 - 1 - be valid unless expressly made void by Chapter 6 or unless expressly made voidable by Chapter 6 and annulled as provided by that chapter. Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 7, Sec. 1, eff. April 17, 1997. Sec. 1.103. PERSONS MARRIED ELSEWHERE. The law of this state applies to persons married elsewhere who are domiciled in this state. Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 7, Sec. 1, eff. April 17, 1997. (this little clause is what concerns me. now let's go to chapter 6.) SUBCHAPTER C. DECLARING A MARRIAGE VOID Sec. 6.201. CONSANGUINITY. A marriage is void if one party to the marriage is related to the other as: (1) an ancestor or descendant, by blood or adoption; (2) a brother or sister, of the whole or half blood or by adoption; (3) a parent's brother or sister, of the whole or half blood or by adoption; or (4) a son or daughter of a brother or sister, of the whole or half blood or by adoption. Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 7, Sec. 1, eff. April 17, 1997. (so as we know, cousins can not marry. Sec. 6.307. JURISDICTION TO DECLARE MARRIAGE VOID. (a) Either party to a marriage made void by this chapter may sue to have the marriage declared void, or the court may declare the marriage void in a collateral proceeding. (b) The court may declare a marriage void only if: (1) the purported marriage was contracted in this state; or (2) either party is domiciled in this state. (c) A suit to have a marriage declared void is a suit in rem, affecting the status of the parties to the purported marriage. Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 7, Sec. 1, eff. April 17, 1997. (now maybe i'm wrong, but it sounds to me as though the state of texas is required to acknowledge as valid any marriage that (at least legally) took place somewhere else, assuming the couple did not live in texas at the time they married elsewhere.) (i emphasised what is in bold.) So... MY understanding (which is worthless in the big scheme of things) is that a couple who resided and married where cousins could legally marry are safe from being declared void by the state of texas. and it is also my understanding (also worthless in the big scheme of things) is that a judge can not peer into the private bedroom of a couple and declare their sexual conduct as illegal because that was fought (in the US supreme court) in lawrence v. texas. at the very least, if any couple ever faces legal action in texas for having sex with the cousin they are married to (or living with, since there is another whole section on the validity of common law marriage), find a lawyer who will be willing to dissect all of the above in front of a judge, and who is willing to take it all the way to the supreme court if necessary. i honestly don't see texas ever reversing it's relatively recent ban on cousin marriage UNLESS it is challenged in the court.
  10. well, not entirely offline, but off cc anyway. i'll be making a road trip north to visit my youngest and her family. see ya in august!
  11. not yet. when does it throw the error? when viewing? posting? quoting?
  12. LadyC

    Favorite browser addons?

    avira web safety, which blocks ads and trackers, and copymethat, which allows me to copy any recipe from any website, including blogs. i also use Grammarly.
  13. LadyC

    Help support our advertisers :)

    oh! so i do! sorry, guess it works!
  14. LadyC

    Help support our advertisers :)

    i don't see any ads.... what are you smoking, boss?
  15. LadyC

    What do you guys do to have fun

    you go girl!! i hope you win!
×