46 replies to this topic

[Hum]

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."

more

[+sanke1]

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

[+littleneutrino]

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.

[xendrome]

sanke1, on 10 January 2013 - 14:38, said:

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

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

littleneutrino, on 10 January 2013 - 14:43, said:

also if you click the link and look at the photo i would say that it would NOT be watchable.

Pic Semi-NSFW - http://i.huffpost.co...g?1354572445504

I'm not saying they are hot by any means, but that statement comes across as this guy - http://cdn.memegener...0x/27300889.jpg

[Intrinsica]

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.

[Conjor]

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.

[Intrinsica]

Conjor, on 10 January 2013 - 14:55, said:

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.

Except that it's illegal.

[Arpit]

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

[Conjor]

Intrinsica, on 10 January 2013 - 15:01, said:

Except that it's illegal.

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

[compl3x]

Conjor, on 10 January 2013 - 15:18, said:

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

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."

I'm not an expert on porn (LOL! ) 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.

[Conjor]

compl3x, on 10 January 2013 - 15:24, said:

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.

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.

[compl3x]

Conjor, on 10 January 2013 - 15:38, said:

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.

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.

[Conjor]

compl3x, on 10 January 2013 - 15:46, said:

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.

The prosecutor would have to prove, beyond a resonable doubt, some kind of sexual exploitation happend. Remembering the following:

• a reasonable doubt is not a doubt based upon sympathy or prejudice;
  
• rather, it is based upon reason and common sense;
  
• it is logically connected to the evidence or absence of evidence;
  
• 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
  
• more is required than proof that the accused is probably guilty ‑‑ a jury which concludes only that the accused is probably guilty must acquit.

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.

[Charisma]

Quote

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

We'll they're halfway there.

best comment on the article

[compl3x]

Conjor, on 10 January 2013 - 15:53, said:

The prosecutor would have to prove, beyond a resonable doubt, some kind of sexual exploitation happend. Remembering the following:

• a reasonable doubt is not a doubt based upon sympathy or prejudice;
  
• rather, it is based upon reason and common sense;
  
• it is logically connected to the evidence or absence of evidence;
  
• 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
  
• more is required than proof that the accused is probably guilty ‑‑ a jury which concludes only that the accused is probably guilty must acquit.

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.

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.