Sex questions in interviews............ :-|

[BeShoo]

I just read this, which you might want to think about before refusing to answer any questions that you might be asked:

(15) The witnesses’ credibility plays an important role in the analysis of the relationship in light of the relevant criteria. The appellant in this case made the panel’s task difficult, mainly by refusing to answer some questions that he considered too personal. http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/doc/2009/2009canlii84306/2009canlii84306.html

 

[toby]

Interesting reference, BeShoo.

But ironically I take this panel's published rationale to mean that the Visa Officer does NOT have carte blance to ask anything he/she likes about the couple's sexual practices.

The panel was asking about simple everyday details, to see if the couple had been communicating about their future life together in Canada. He (appellant) told the panel (defiantly?) that such details were irrelevant, and in fact he had not talked about this aspect with his new wife either.

The panel rightfully concluded that he was being less than helpful, but that this was not evidence of a marriage of convenience, and that her (the applicant's) lack of specific knowledge was not in itself evidence of a faked marriage, since she evidently accepted his opinions and preferences on faith.

This reticence about everyday details is far from feeling one must answer questions about personal sexual practices! So, if a panel will look past reticence about everyday details, I assume it certainly would ignore a refusal to answer nosy, prurient questions about sexual practices.

Indeed, the more I think about it, the more I suspect that if a VO is asking such questions, he\she must be pre-disposed against the applicant, and therefore is looking for excuses to reject tha application. So, no good would come of answering these.

Again, I think the prudent course would be to ask the VO how such sexual information would help him/her reach a conclusion about the relationship's authenticity, ad then re-cast the question to provide a similar but not so embarrassing answer.

Example: VO asks "What position do you prefer when having sex?"
You answer: "That is embarrassing to answer; how will this information help you reach a decision?" [This re-establishes equality and dignity. The VO is not God anymore.]
VO: "I will know whether you and your spouse regularly have sexual relations, since I will ask your spouse the same question and compare your answers."
You answer: "In that case, I suggest you would get equivalent information by asking us which side of the bed we sleep on, and how frequently we make love. This we could answer with less embarrassment. My answer is 'on the left side (when in bed) and 45 times per week on average!!!" (joke)

 

[BeShoo]

I'm not taking sides on that "too personal" question, just saying that it's something to think about. I doubt that many us want to be in a position of making life difficult for the people that make decisions about our futures.

It's unfortunate, but IOs often are God in a certain restrictive sense. They have wide discretionary powers. There was a recent case of a Canadian couple crossing the Niagara River to go to an outlet mall they had heard about. The IO asked which store they were going to and what they were planning to buy. They had intended to just browse and they weren't even precisely sure where the mall was located, but the guy basically told the officer, "It's none of your business." This really didn't help get them into the U.S.

I think that asking positions is more relevant than frequency, but I actually don't see any of those things as appropriate and hope I never get asked them. (Ick, how did I get into this discussion?) Nevertheless, if I was asked any sort of question like this, I would probably just answer. The side of the bed I sleep on seems like an appropriate question and doesn't really seem embarrassing to me.

 

[toby]

Nevertheless, if I was asked any sort of question like this, I would probably just answer. The side of the bed I sleep on seems like an appropriate question and doesn't really seem embarrassing to me.

I agree that "which side of the bed" is acceptable, and should not be embarrassing. But if the Officer got more personal, I'd imply -- and not hesitate to -- ask "why do you need even more information about our sex life? You already have enough informatin to know whether we sleep together or not; anything more is for some other purpose than to assess our relationship."

I know, be submissive and let them rule is often the easier way, but then they become more obnoxious for the next person. If you can't stand up to a bureaucrat in Canada, where can you? Let's not act as if we are in a totalitarian regime; we may be heading that way, but let's at least drag our feet!!

Warning: soapbox speech follows.
If I were to end up at an appeal hearing as a result, that is a price I'd be willing to pay to not kowtow to a petty bureaucrat. And putting a bureaucrat on notice that his/her behaviour will be reviewed by a panel (and perhaps the panel's contrary decision would be noted on the bureaucrat's file), might make him/her more careful and respectful to the next applicant. That would be my gift to those who follow me.

All clear: speech ended.

 

[abumawada]

@toby,


i admire your comments indeed, but here people they only scare as the process of getting the PR visa for them is something fragile. come on guys don't expose your privacy for some one who never even know where the dignity stands for. secondly for those who commented that, if they asked you the same question,you are ready to tell it is upto you and my advice to you who knows since just telling may not fulfill the interest just take a support of video shots so that the interviewer satisfied and convinced easily .

 

[locolynn]

I know, be submissive and let them rule is often the easier way, but then they become more obnoxious for the next person. If you can't stand up to a bureaucrat in Canada, where can you? Let's not act as if we are in a totalitarian regime; we may be heading that way, but let's at least drag our feet!!

I think you made an important distinction about standing up to a bureaucrat in Canada.

A lot of people come from countries where standing up to any kind of government official gets you in a lot of hot water, or at the very least will put you to the back of the line (waaaaaaaaaaaaay back). Your only option is the play nice, take what they give you and get out.

Sure the I/O are working on behalf of the Canadian government and don't *technically* have the right to do that. But for people who only know an unjust system...it's hard to trust that a system is in fact just...especially when it's probably not. If that makes any sense. Lol!

Lynn

Lynn

 

[boyee6576]

It makes sense to me Lynn.

Not so just countries really have its citizens by the neck. Play there way and have a pocketfull of money to boot. For most from those countries its better to comply and make them happy then irritate them and get rejected. Everything is in the officers hands and they know it.

 

[sbwv09]

It seems that, most of the time, they may ask something like "When was the first time you had sex". I'm perfectly ok with that.. if you don't know the first time you had sex with your partner, that's not going to look good. Positions and stuff on the other hand.. that's going too far.. but I do agree that the IOs have all the power. If they ask me, I will answer. I don't want to make any trouble!

Of course, I'm still hoping to have my interview waived

 

[BeShoo]

Here's a couple more real-life examples of sex questions that I recently came across (nothing about positions or that sort of thing):

A substantial discrepancy arose regarding whether the appellant and the applicant have sexual relations. The appellant testified that they do not use birth control and that they are trying to have her become pregnant. The applicant twice testified that since the wedding trip they have not had sexual relations. In re-examination he stated that they do have sexual relations but that he withdraws from her prior to ejaculation, to avoid pregnancy. The re-examination came after a break and opportunity to consider the testimony, but it is still in contradiction with the appellant’s claim that they do not use any form of birth control and her assertion that she is trying to become pregnant.
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/doc/2009/2009canlii82894/2009canlii82894.html

The appellant testified that they were sexually intimate only after their marriage, which accords with the mores of Morocco. The applicant testified that not only did they engage in sexual relations before their marriage in his parents’ home, but that his parents were aware of the situation.
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/doc/2010/2010canlii23755/2010canlii23755.html

 

[boasorte]

Thanks for sharing BeShoo, both links are so intense!

 

[sbwv09]

It's sad too.. I could understand in both of those instances how they could still be genuine. For the first, perhaps the female was raised religiously and didn't understand that what the man was doing was preventing pregnancy. For the second, perhaps the female didn't want to say that they had sex before marriage.

I do also understand why the questions were asked though... the decision to try for children is huge, and a couple's first time together is important.

 

[boasorte]

And it seemed to me that age is a factor really important . . . if it is indeed I am in trouble because my partner and I have an age difference. :/

 

[sbwv09]

If it is a sizable age difference, you will probably have to show more proof that your relationship is genuine, but it doesn't mean you have to be discouraged.

 

[boyee6576]

My husband and I have 11 years between us. The VO asked my husband questions about why he married someone older and he said her age was not important she was what I wanted in a wife. I think if you can establish that age is not a negative factor in your relationship there shouldnt be a problem. They will ask about it, but I dont beleive they will reject you becuase of age differences. As was said earlier, they might look at your case a little harder as they did ours but if you have some solid proof then I cant see them being hung up on your age difference. Dont be least bit discouraged. If you get called for an interview just be prepared. Gather letters from family and friends that support your relationship etc.

 

[boasorte]

Reading one of these things on the website I saw a case which the husband was 30 years older than the wife and they got the case finished well, our age difference isn't that big(not even close) which makes me a little bit more confident, but I can't guarantee I am outta trouble since they have their own minds(the IO). Anyways, we shall always hope for the best. peace !