What do you think of this...(possible rape)

Yes ^^

That case is mad! I can't see anywhere why exactly she was found guilty though. According to that information she was reported for sexual assault back when they still thought she was a boy....so it can't have been just because she lied. Surely she must have done something in addition to that to warrant the police becoming involved in the first place?

Also, on the age issue it says 'Judge Moss added: "And it's very serious. The girls she preyed on are much younger than her."

Well, in his opinion, Micah.

So bowl, if I understand correctly;

Legally, it's not rape. Because she didn't know, as in had never met, the man she had sex with. The fact she had a photograph is not classed as knowing or having a relationship of any sort with either the person in the photograph or the person claiming to be the person in the photograph.

Therefore, legally, the photograph is irrelevant, and the case is treated as if she met a stranger, allowed herself to be blindfolded without seeing him, and consented to sex.

If he had sent the young model to meet her and blindfold her, then swapped and had sex with her, then that, legally, is rape.

I disagree with you. The extent of their knowledge of each other was internet based. They both had "a person in their mind " as the person they wanted to have sex with. Unfortunately he perpetrated a deliberate, massive and persistent deception as to who that person was, just as Gemma Barker did.

It's good that you've stopped calling other posters on the thread dim, that's progress. (Pax - you might like to note that bowl said that before I said anything judgmental to him)

Sorry....

...."he was that young man....."

"...The woman in this case knew her "John Doe" as a 20 something good looking male; surely he also completed a deception that negated consent..."

But that's the thing - she didn't know her John Doe at all. She saw a picture on the Internet. Had she actually known a young man in real life who looked like the model and had his (user)name, and this old man was tricking her into thinking her was that young man......then her consent is negated.

Here's the case, outraged:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2110430/Gemma-Barker-jailed-Vctims-girl-dressed-boy-date-speak-anguish.html

NB it wasn't rape as no penetration with a penis was involved.

No it was an offence because of the deception.

The law is not used or intended to be used in the UK to criminalise similarly aged teens having genuinely consensual sex (no coercion, power imblanaces etc).

I would not want to see 15yo being prosecuted for having cheerful consensual sex with each other and I'm always a bit surprised when I find people who would.

Bowl

The woman in this case knew her "John Doe" as a 20 something good looking male; surely he also completed a deception that negated consent.

Ok, so you'd've decided differently to the court on that one (I don't think the underage thing was a factor as both people were of similar age; it might have been used in court to counteract a "surely she must have known it was a girl.." Type argument)

YonicScrewdriver

In the boy/girl case, the victim had established the identity of the person she was engaging with as [John Doe - a male] - the victim actually KNEW [John Doe - a male] as a real person in her mind because thats the person she had been involved with.

When it transpired that John was actually [Jane - a female] the deception to negate consent was complete.

'Outraged, the girl who pretended to be a boy (who was found guilty) never took off her clothes so the victim did not know; the deception was continued in person.

Iirc the people involved were around 15.'

I see your point, but I still think that you agree to have sex with the person in front of you. Not removing his/her clothes is the same as not removing the blindfold. You have the opportunity to check, if you choose not to take it that's your risk.

It's horrible to deceive people like that, but I don't think it's rape.

If the people involved were under age then that is obviously a different matter. It was an offence because they were under age regardless of anyone's sex.

If you advance search bowl, you'll see what I mean. Up to you, pax.

The other thing is, presumably he didn't just say, "Let's meet for blindfolded sex, here's what I look like." He would have said all kinds of other things too - "I'm 25, I'm six foot tall, I work out, here's a photo." He set out to obtain sex with women who he knew would never consent to have sex with the real him.

I find the "too good to be true" argument deeply disturbing - there's an unpleasant whiff of "In your dreams, love" about it.

The female activist who had a child with the undercover cop got a payout of £425,000.

Yonic, no doubt there will be another thread soon asking why so many posters avoid the Feminism threads.
Basically they are not welcome here if they don't agree with some of you.

I think if the person making the sexual contact is doing so in full knowledge that the consent is based on a significant deception then they do not have valid consent to proceed and a sexual crime has taken place.

Outraged, the girl who pretended to be a boy (who was found guilty) never took off her clothes so the victim did not know; the deception was continued in person.

Iirc the people involved were around 15.

Mengog, I'd put that on my spectrum above. I'd place it slightly more towards the poet/Rockstar end but yes, I think it's still a deception on a point that's essential to meaningful consent, so it's still rape.

I don't know how a court would rule, though.

'Outraged, what's your view of the case I outlined where the recipient of sexual contact was deceived as to the sex of the provider of that contact and that invalidated the consent?'

I remember that case, but don't know all the details. If someone said they were a boy online and then turned up and they were a girl, and then at that time the other person consented to sex, I don't think it's rape. As another poster said earlier 'What the person consents to is sex with that physical human in front of them'.

lol yonic

"No - if the CPS believe there is enough evidence, they put the case forward for the court to decide if it is rape."

Erm no

The CPS decide to bring a prosecution for a specific crime, if they believe they have enough evidence that they have a good chance of securing a conviction, and if it's in the public interest to do so.

The CPS don't go to court and say "ah right we've got all this evidence here, can you court people decide please which crime we might be looking at here?"

Bowlof, have you checked out the other parts of MN? There's some good topics.

I think there is also a whiff of ideas around "loose women" and how if they consent to one they consent to all - the attitude that prostitutes could not be raped - that idea.

It came up just now - that she consented to perform these sex acts so why should it matter who it was with, and she probably loved it.

"...So it could have been classified as rape, if there had been enough evidence...."

No - if the CPS believe there is enough evidence, they put the case forward for the court to decide if it is rape.

The only issue with the undercover cops was that of identity/deception - nothing else was really disputed - it was pretty clear that they had sex and that the women consented to sex with [someone]. It would therefore have been on the issue of identity/deception that the evidence was deemed insufficient.