Advanced search

to ask what you make of this

(118 Posts)
kim147 Mon 11-Mar-13 20:56:14

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

aldiwhore Tue 12-Mar-13 00:17:46

I think it's about what you can reasonably expect once you've agreed to have sex with someone.

In my case, I would expect them to use their penis, not a milk bottle. I would expect them to be male.

I do agree that lying to get someone into bed is also shite, but it's really not as much of a violation as being conned on the basic given circumstances, that being gender. I do think a person should be able to sue someone for lying about their marital status but that's another thread I think.

I am assuming that the charge of sexual intimacy by fraud is the 'closest fit' from a legal point of view.

garlicbrain Tue 12-Mar-13 00:24:57

I agree with all those who say this isn't about transphobia; it's about sexual predation by fraud. The fact that the girls were so naive emphasises the perpetrator's intentions to abuse: she'd never have got away with it had her victims been more experienced.

Kim, I am not referring to this person as "he" because those who disrespect others lose the right to respect for their preferences.

Of course a transgendered individual should tell potential sex partners before engaging in sexual activity. The idea that they might not consider their partners' feelings and reactions beforehand is repugnant!

This touches on that so-called "right to sex" debate, doesn't it?
Nobody has the right to sex.
Everyone has the right to freely choose with whom they have sex.
Therefore they have the right to sufficient information to make that choice.

How would you feel about a straight man who got a hetero FTM into bed by pretending to be a woman?

rentalproperly Tue 12-Mar-13 00:29:22

X-posted, aldiwhore. That last comment about underage was to Zebra.

I'm not pansexual (okay, I don't know what that means. I don't think I am, though!). But I honestly think there's something strange going on when gender becomes this important after the fact.

"If I choose to have sex with someone willingly, then it very much does matter what genitalia they have got."

But the thing is, at the time, apparently it didn't. Because the girl in question carried on for - what was it - six months? Deception, to be sure, but she was happy with the sex for six months (or whatever). If the complaint is being made AFTER the act, and only on the basis of a difference in gender being discovered afterwards, well.... yeah, I have to ask what the problem is. You had sex with someone of a gender you did not intend to have sex with. You enjoyed it (or didn't) at the time.

Of course it was a fraud, but not more a fraud than a million other lies that can be told to obtain sex. And in my opinion, less serious than others I can think of.

MrsSham Tue 12-Mar-13 00:29:32

When a girl is over 13 and the age difference is not very big a charge of underage sex tends only to be used for the purpose of public interest. So if its deemed not in the public interest then no charge is made, ie he isn't really a threat to the general public. Could be put slightly better than I have worded it though.

rentalproperly Tue 12-Mar-13 00:35:54

1) I don't type fast enough.

2) "How would you feel about a straight man who got a hetero FTM into bed by pretending to be a woman?" Exactly the same.

I would also like to clarify that anyone who seriously misrepresents themself to get sex is a lying scum. But if we prosecute for sexual intimacy by fraud, I think there's a lot of court cases to be had. And I'm a little suspect of the gender-worse-than-all-else thing.

MrsSham Tue 12-Mar-13 00:36:55

However just read the article and seems quite a big age gap

IneedAsockamnesty Tue 12-Mar-13 00:37:35

It this the same case that was in the news last year? I'm sure I remember watching something on tv about it.

Loads of people lie to get sex but most of those lies if they work say far more about the decency of the person being lied to than they do about the liar.

If I was to have sex with someone due to what they said their income/status/ position in society was then that makes me a immoral shallow money/ power grabbing person who should make it clear to the person that that is why I'm fucking them, so both equally as bad as each other so very little reason for mutual cannot expect someone to show you respect if you are showing both yourself and them none.

Telling lies about your gender or sexual health is very different.i would not knowingly have sex with someone of the same gender or someone who had a known sti. I would also not be happy for someone to insert a foreign object into my body without my full knowledge or consent regardless of the sex to do so would be a sexual assault.

Do I think transgender people should always have to disclose? No not if they have actually changed gender correctly because then they are the gender they identify with,it wouldn't bother me if I had sex with someone who had made those changes because they would be the gender they claim to be regardless of what it says on the birth cert,

But up until that point then yes you should have to disclose and if you don't in the knowledge that the person would not otherwise have sex with you then yes it should be a crime.

But then again I think it should be a crime to not disclose

Sexual health status if known,
Marital status,
Domestic violence/ rape/child protection related convictions,

So I can be quite harsh about that sort of thing.

WorraLiberty Tue 12-Mar-13 00:40:12

Oh come on rental it's abuse.

So what if she enjoyed it?

She enjoyed it because she thought she was being turned on by a man.

She thought her orgasms given to her were given by a man

She thought the 'penis' that entered her belonged to a man

At no time did she happily choose to engage in a sexual act with a woman.

That is clearly abuse and sexual assault because she would never have given a woman permission to have sex with her.

Some victims of sexual abuse struggle greatly with the fact that there were times during their abuse, that they actually felt turned on...some have actually orgasmed and therefore blame themselves instead of blaming their abuser.

It's a nasty, vile thing to do to anyone and can fuck them up mentally for life.

IneedAsockamnesty Tue 12-Mar-13 00:40:52


If you can get a milk bottle in your vagina without crying then I'm strangely impressed and more than a little frightened of you.

garlicbrain Tue 12-Mar-13 00:43:09

Those undercover policemen who formed long-term relationships for the purposes of their job are going to be prosecuted, I believe. I don't know what with - possibly the same offence?

You probably could indict a married person for the same, if you'd been clear you would only consider sex with an unattached partner. The defence would have a field day with you, though, which is why those girls' extreme density naivety is a factor in the story.

IneedAsockamnesty Tue 12-Mar-13 00:45:58

Being dense here but how could the defence have a field day,if you had made it clear not being married was a requirement?

rentalproperly Tue 12-Mar-13 00:51:13

I think the reactions of a victim of sexual abuse - who is very much aware at the time that they are being abused, or that something wrong is going on, whatever their sexual response - and those of someone who considered the sex 'loving' until she found out the deception is a very, very different thing.

She was in no way physically harmed (that we know of). That makes a gender deception a totally different thing than concealing a disease, as well.

A lot of deceptions are vile and can fuck a person up mentally for life - say impersonating a teenage bullying victim in order to get sex. I guess we'll just have to disagree on the gender fraud being the worst part.

aldiwhore Tue 12-Mar-13 00:54:16

socket fair point well made.

Rental, it's quite common for horror to happen after the fact surely?

If I agree to have sex with a man, and he is a man, then I have the right to expect that sexual consent includes only what could be considered within normal parameters. If I agree to sex with a man, that does not mean I agree to EVERY possibility surely? So other than the expected, predictable, usual, common acts, anything else would require further permission, the use of sex toys (prosthetics included, though I realise they're more than a toy) and random inanimate objects (perhaps not MILK bottles after all) require further permission... so maybe it's not JUST about the gender fraud but also the absence of the permissions for acts that fell outside usual boundaries?

If my husband took my consent as a green light to do whatever he felt like, wouldn't the MN jury be furious? Would most people in that scenario be in agreement that it would be a gross violation of trust, in fact serious sexual assault?

Why is it different in this case?

WorraLiberty Tue 12-Mar-13 00:54:28

I think you're right we will have to agree to disagree because if any woman ever went near my body sexually, I think I would be violently sick.

I would never knowingly allow a woman to touch me sexually and if I found out that due to deception and lies she had, I would want her prosecuted in exactly the same way I would want a man who violated me prosecuted too.

garlicbrain Tue 12-Mar-13 00:55:13

Sock - slightly off-topic but, as we have an adversarial court system, the defence could easily raise a thousand checks you should have done but didn't (as those checks would reveal doubtful marital status). The undercover cops, by contrast, had fully-developed fake lives, documentation, etc.

It's a whole different thing from gender. If it matters to you that your first sex partner is man, it's reasonable to go by outward appearance and their own statement. Defence would get short shrift for suggesting you should have checked their birth certificate - the victim had felt what she believed to be a penis, so she did a reasonable check.

garlicbrain Tue 12-Mar-13 00:57:32

She was in no way physically harmed

Fuck me, that's straight out of the abuser's handbook angry

So what??? She was emotionally and psychologically harmed. Systematic lying is abuse.

WorraLiberty Tue 12-Mar-13 01:00:25

Exactly garlic

aldiwhore Tue 12-Mar-13 01:03:50

The other thing I am not comfortable with (but may have missed this speed reading) is the op's use of the term transgender. She isn't transgender from what I've read, she's not going from make to female, she's a female lesbian to pretended to be male to get girls into bed. <<< Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think that's the same as transgender in my (limited) experience... usually it's a process of changing from one to the other permanently, not a role playing exercise for the purpose of conning people into having sex with you?

I think the intent is the crucial factor in this case, and the intent was to obtain sex by deception.

rentalproperly Tue 12-Mar-13 01:09:29

'She was emotionally and psychologically harmed.'

Right, which is not physically harmed, as I was pointing out the difference between the gender fraud and say, I didn't tell you I had HIV.

You may disagree with me, and fair enough, but I've hardly made light of what the girl went through. She attempted suicide - she was clearly harmed. She was also 15.

IneedAsockamnesty Tue 12-Mar-13 01:10:00

Thanks garlic.

Rental by saying she was not harmed until she found out is a bit like saying people who are spiked with that drug that makes you do weird shit were not abused.

garlicbrain Tue 12-Mar-13 01:17:30

I can't see why you want to separate physical abuse from emotional-psychological abuse, unless you want to claim one's worse than the other.

This perpetrator not only claimed to be a teenage bullying victim (lied about their age and circumstances), they also lied about having a penis and about what they were sticking in the girl's body. Absolutely nothing about this is okay, nor 'less than' some other variety of sexual assault.

aldiwhore Tue 12-Mar-13 01:24:23

If you base the crime on physical damage alone, many a rapist would go free wouldn't they?

The violation, the fraud, the prosthetic that should have been a penis, the lies, the deception... I can't see a single angle where it would be okay.

I don't even think the girl was stupid. I touched my first penis at around 15 and it was not at all what I expected, I didn't kNOW what to expect, but it was the weirdest thing I'd ever touched in my bloody life (I was facinated in truth) so I can see how, in the dark, with your hands held down, you might not realise if something else is used. That doesn't make it okay. Her naivety and lack of experience was not a crime.

musicmadness Tue 12-Mar-13 01:26:27

Is the person involved trans or not? I can't tell from these articles. I've seen reports that they are female and other reports that they are a trans man who is pre op. It makes a massive difference IMO.

I'll say now I'm pansexual so this could easily effect how I'm seeing this, as I honestly don't understand why someone would be revolted by sexual contact with one sex/gender. I know of course that people do, and respect that but I can't imagine what it feels like to have gender as a deal breaker to sex or a relationship.

If the person is a woman who is not trans and was lying about her gender then I think that is awful, and the conviction is deserved. I'd argue that I would consider lying about marital status to be just as bad though, as I would be horrified to find out I'd slept with someone who was married and I would never have slept with them if I'd known the truth. I'm sure most people have one or more lines that they would never cross in this regard and whatever that boundary was if a partner deliberately lied to get you into bed I would see that as exactly the same thing.

If the person is a pre op trans man then I think it becomes a lot more complicated, because to all intents and purposes they are a man, just trapped in the wrong body. I don't think there is generally any reason to disclose this unless the person wants to, and I think, though I'm not certain on this, that it is unlawful to force someone to disclose if they are trans or not. In this case I'd argue that it is the same as if someone born biologically a man but who for some reason, maybe an accident or something, doesn't have a functioning penis had used a prosthetic without telling the woman. It's unethical, but I don't think it is illegal.

rentalproperly Tue 12-Mar-13 01:27:03

I made the point about physical harm in response to others who had made the point about this being like not disclosing disease, and I disagree. Yes, indeed, I do think it is worse to give someone HIV than to have sex with someone without disclosing your gender. I really do.

As to the fraud, I finally went and read the response link the OP posted, and it does sum up my problem with this:

"...Which begs the question, if he had presented in accordance with his birth assigned sex, female, would he be in the position he is in now, on the sex offenders register and facing prison? Or for that matter if his birth assigned sex matched his gender identity, male?

After a fairly comprehensive search on Westlaw, the largest directory of court cases on the web, we could find no other cases where the charge was ‘obtaining sexual intimacy by fraud’. "

And therein lies my problem. If the only reason that the liar is being prosecuted is for lying about her gender, and not all the other lies, then it throws up big questions.

FloraFox Tue 12-Mar-13 01:28:25

Yes they're different rental but it's not about deciding which of various types of deception is the worst. It's about whether it is bad enough that it should be a crime. I think it is, as would be not disclosing a disease or inserting an object without consent. Other lies that overcome consent should probably be criminal also but they would be difficult to prove in most cases. I'm surprised anyone here would brush it off lightly.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now