47 posts in this topic

Posted

Jessica Sexxxton, 56, and her daughter, Monica, 22, are hoping to become filthy rich as a porn tag team. They say they skirt potential legal problems by not touching each other during their sex scenes.

A mother and daughter in Tampa, Fla., have a unique way of expressing family togetherness -- by creating a pornography site and shooting sex scenes together.

The duo -- known collectively as "The Sexxxtons" -- like many porn performers, don't give out their last names. Jessica, the mom, and Monica, the daughter, have been creating kinky content for their self-titled website for the past year and have just released a DVD.

In order to confirm the Sexxxtons are really related and not just claiming that as a marketing gimmick, The Huffington Post reviewed both women's driver's licenses, and their private Facebook pages, as well as private family photos going back 20 years.

Although mother and daughter have sex in the same room at the same time -- often with the same male or female partner -- they insist that their encounters are not incestuous. For legal and personal reasons, they don't actually touch each other during sex scenes.

"We don't have a problem doing two-on-one," Jessica, 56, explained to The Huffington Post. "We will have sex with one man, but not interact with each other."

Monica, 22, said the kinky choreography is a lot more difficult than her mom makes it sound.

"It's not easy to do," she told HuffPost. "Our lips never touch and that can be a problem when filming."

Those precautions, the Sexxxtons said, are what keeps their scenes from legally being incestuous, even if experts like Beverly Hills-based psychiatrist Dr. Carole Lieberman, who has never treated the Sexxxtons, considers their activities to be "emotional incest."

"This crosses so many lines, it's like a labyrinth," Lieberman told HuffPost. "Even if they're not having sex with each other, it has to be titillating to one or both or them, so it crosses the line since sexual arousal comes into the mix."

Monica acknowledges the mother-daughter porn is enjoyable. "I enjoy the sex and I enjoy being with my mom," she said. "During the scenes, I think about how we're going to be filthy rich."

[url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/06/mother-daughter-porn-duo-jessica-monica-sexxxton_n_2238052.html"]more[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I am all pro Free World concept. But this is taking it too far. Touching or not, it's still an incest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I would not say that it is Incest however, it is very strange, also if you click the link and look at the photo i would say that it would NOT be watchable.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='sanke1' timestamp='1357828688' post='595444872']
I am all pro Free World concept. But this is taking it too far. Touching or not, it's still an incest.
[/quote]

It's technically not, they are not preforming intercourse on each other...

[quote name='littleneutrino' timestamp='1357829013' post='595444894']
also if you click the link and look at the photo i would say that it would NOT be watchable.
[/quote]

Pic Semi-NSFW - [url="http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/267393/slide_267393_1834037_free.jpg?1354572445504"]http://i.huffpost.co...g?1354572445504[/url]

I'm not saying they are hot by any means, but that statement comes across as this guy - [url="http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/27300889.jpg"]http://cdn.memegener...0x/27300889.jpg[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Wait, people pay this much attention to porn? I mean, once the action gets going aren't you basically just working with the idea of the scene, not the specific details about the actors's lives? I can't see it being any more of a money making idea than regular porn.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm curious as to what legal issues they are reffering too. Is the government going to try and step in and stop them? Last I checked, it was not the mandate of the US government to interfear with peoples sex lives. Incestuous or not, it's their choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Conjor' timestamp='1357829702' post='595444926']I'm curious as to what legal issues they are reffering too. Is the government going to try and step in and stop them? Last I checked, it was not the mandate of the US government to interfear with peoples sex lives. [b]Incestuous or not, it's their choice.[/b][/quote]
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest#United_States"]Except that it's illegal.[/URL]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

gross but even if wasn't... 56 year old? gross still...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Intrinsica' timestamp='1357830062' post='595444934']
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest#United_States"]Except that it's illegal.[/url]
[/quote]I can't speak from an American perspective, but from a Canadian perspective I could easily see a constitutional argument which would superceed any kind of incest law.

Just looking at Section 2 of Schedule B of the Constitution Act referring to freedom of association. Unless R. could somehow prove that, through Section 1, incest was beyond a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, then they would have no case.

Again, what place does the goverment have telling me, or anyone else, who they can and cannot have sex with. Not that I'm a proponent of incest; I just like to argue law :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Conjor' timestamp='1357831105' post='595444966']
I can't speak from an American perspective, but from a Canadian perspective I could easily see a constitutional argument which would superceed any kind of incest law.

Just looking at Section 2 of Schedule B of the Constitution Act referring to freedom of association. Unless R. could somehow prove that, through Section 1, incest was beyond a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, then they would have no case.

Again, what place does the goverment have telling me, or anyone else, who they can and cannot have sex with. Not that I'm a proponent of incest; I just like to argue law :p
[/quote]


Isn't there an issue about offspring? Related people having kids usually ends pretty poorly. It might be argued there is a higher chance of birth complication/mental issues due to the selection of genes going from a pool to a puddle. It doesn't apply in gay incestuous relationships, but hetero it would.


Just a thought.

[quote]"During the scenes, I think about how we're going to be filthy rich."[/quote]

I'm not an expert on porn (LOL! :laugh:) but I don't think people become filthy rich by doing porn. They might make a decent living, but filthy rich? Nah.



Ultimately, I agree with the Psychiatrist: it can't be healthy emotionally. I can't even imagine how anyone would come to this arrangement. "Hey, let's do porn together, daughter, give us a chance to bond and cum at the same time!" Revolting.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='compl3x' timestamp='1357831486' post='595444988']
Isn't there an issue about offspring? Related people having kids usually ends pretty poorly. It might be argued there is a higher chance of birth complication/mental issues due to the selection of genes going from a pool to a puddle. It doesn't apply in gay incestuous relationships, but hetero it would.


Just a thought.
[/quote]It's not so much a question of whether the act will produce any detrimental effects, but more a question of the bounds to which we allow our governing bodies to make decision for us (us being Society). Smoking, drinking, any type of substance abuse, while pregnant can also have serious detrimental effects on a child. Last I checked, there are no laws in Canada, nor the US, which make substance abuse while pregnant illegal. And I use substance abuse in a broad term here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Conjor' timestamp='1357832287' post='595445030']
It's not so much a question of whether the act will produce any detrimental effects, but more a question of the bounds to which we allow our governing bodies to make decision for us (us being Society). Smoking, drinking, any type of substance abuse, while pregnant can also have serious detrimental effects on a child. Last I checked, there are no laws in Canada, nor the US, which make substance abuse while pregnant illegal. And I use substance abuse in a broad term here.
[/quote]

Ok. Perhaps it could be argued it is exploitative. I think it could be easily argued that the relation was manipulated into have sex. I'd imagine there would be psychological evidence which could corroborate that. It seems unlikely a son or daughter becomes an adult then up-and-decides they want to have sex with a parent. They've probably been exploited/raped their entire lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='compl3x' timestamp='1357832797' post='595445066']
Ok. Perhaps it could be argued it is exploitative. I think it could be easily argued that the relation was manipulated into have sex. I'd imagine there would be psychological evidence which could corroborate that. It seems unlikely a son or daughter becomes an adult then up-and-decides they want to have sex with a parent. They've probably been exploited/raped their entire lives.
[/quote]The prosecutor would have to prove, beyond a resonable doubt, some kind of sexual exploitation happend. Remembering the following:[list]
[*][i]a reasonable doubt is not a doubt based upon sympathy or prejudice;[/i]
[*][i]rather, it is based upon reason and common sense;[/i]
[*][i]it is logically connected to the evidence or absence of evidence;[/i]
[*][i]it does not involve proof to an absolute certainty; it is not proof beyond any doubt nor is it an imaginary or frivolous doubt; and[/i]
[*][i]more is required than proof that the accused is probably guilty ?? a jury which concludes only that the accused is probably guilty must acquit.[/i]
[/list]
So if one of the parties up and admits to some kind of cohersion, or there is evidence which supports previous sexual abuses, we are out of the realm of incest and into sexual exploitation (section 153 of the Criminal Code of Canada). And I point out, it is not based on sympathy of prejudice. Whether or not you, individually, agree with the act or not is irrelevent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote]"Mother-daughter porn duo aim to be filthy rich".

We'll they're halfway there.[/quote]

best comment on the article :laugh:
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Conjor' timestamp='1357833235' post='595445090']
The prosecutor would have to prove, beyond a resonable doubt, some kind of sexual exploitation happend. Remembering the following:[list]
[*][i]a reasonable doubt is not a doubt based upon sympathy or prejudice;[/i]
[*][i]rather, it is based upon reason and common sense;[/i]
[*][i]it is logically connected to the evidence or absence of evidence;[/i]
[*][i]it does not involve proof to an absolute certainty; it is not proof beyond any doubt nor is it an imaginary or frivolous doubt; and[/i]
[*][i]more is required than proof that the accused is probably guilty ?? a jury which concludes only that the accused is probably guilty must acquit.[/i]
[/list]
So if one of the parties up and admits to some kind of cohersion, or there is evidence which supports previous sexual abuses, we are out of the realm of incest and into sexual exploitation (section 153 of the Criminal Code of Canada). And I point out, it is not based on sympathy of prejudice. Whether or not you, individually, agree with the act or not is irrelevent.
[/quote]


You're right. This is the kind of crime which would probably never get heard in a court because if you have 2 (or more) willing participants then who is going to involve the law?

The only thing I can think of is that if the incest was exposed, by a third party, the state might demand psychiatric evaluations? I don't know, I'm just speculating at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Conjor' timestamp='1357829702' post='595444926']
I'm curious as to what legal issues they are reffering too. Is the government going to try and step in and stop them? Last I checked, it was not the mandate of the US government to interfear with peoples sex lives. Incestuous or not, it's their choice.[/quote]

First principle: states are given a wide latitude when it comes to home rule, so the Feds don't often get into state criminal law issues unless they go against the Federal interest. What's illegal in one state is often legal in another. In this states are like semi-autonomous "countries" within the larger Federalist structure. This is codified in the 10th Amendment.

In [i]Lawrence v Texas[/i] (2003) the US Supreme Cousd ruled that homosexual sodomy was legal. But it did NOT rule that other nominally illegal sexual activities were too by extension; prostitution, incest, polygamy, etc.

Next up; [I]Muth v Frank[/i] (7th Circuit Court, 2005.) In [i]Muth[/i] a brother & sister incest was prosecuted in Wisconsin. They were convicted and appealed referencing [i]Lawrence[/i]

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1247048.html

Finding -

[quote]Given, therefore, the specific focus in Lawrence on homosexual sodomy, the absence from the Court's opinion of its own

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I don't see a problem as long as they don't sexually touch each other - that would be gross - and I'm glad that they profess that they would not even want to, that would cross the line in weirdness factor. This taboo theme has been popular in porn but until now it has all been staged as far as I know (hope). I have heard though that there are twin brothers (legitimately twin brothers; not lookalikes) on the homosexual scene who actually DO incest. The homosexuality is fine, but actual incest is really gross.

The only other gross factor/borderline incest is that if they are sharing partners at the same time, they will invariably be sharing bodily fluids of each other off the shared partner. Other than that, lucky guy or girl who gets to do a bona fide mother & daughter at once! Even if still a little bit messed up that they would be having sex near each other at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Legal or not; still gross to even think about it.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think it is wrong... but why is it incest? Wasn't the law designed to prevent inbreeding and potential birth defects?
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

disgusting...at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Clearly a lot of people here haven't gotten to do the mother/daughter duo. :shifty:

This is pretty hilarious though. I'm enjoying the laugh. :D
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Tuishimi' timestamp='1357837012' post='595445262']
I think it is wrong... but why is it incest? Wasn't the law designed to prevent inbreeding and potential birth defects?[/quote]

The law has to be gender blind, so it isn't necessary for the participants to be of opposite sexes. Example: women can be, and have been, charged with rape and reproduction is incidental to incest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Pupik' timestamp='1357835897' post='595445220']
Legal or not; still gross to even think about it.
[/quote]

My thoughts exact. Just yuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Growled' timestamp='1357865912' post='595446586']
My thoughts exact. Just yuck.
[/quote]

Don't like it? Fine - have nothing to do with it. As long as no laws are broken, all opinions are pretty much moot - outside of the participants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What is the rationale behind the criminalization of same-sex "incest" between consenting adults -- apart from it being revolting?

A consanguine mother and daughter pr0n team can pound their pudenda together all they like, but it is not going to result in offspring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.