Sex by deception

I just listened to Whittle where they justify withholding information or lying outright as consent.

So presumably Lab LGBT are trying to appropriate that version of misogyny into law. Really the law needs to embody respect - if you respect someone, you tell the truth because you want their informed consent.

Anything else is objectifying someone else to get your way- justifying deception and withholding as ok and not abuse

What stil way back before the inevitable derailing - plus I think MRAs in different guises are wanting to erase women altogether, apart from as virgins, mothers & whores - as Pope Gregory did from the Bible - did you know that the word Bible had been sequestered from women and perverted - The word, "bible," came from BABYLOS, the City of the Great Mother, the oldest continuously occupied temple in the world. The Goddess (called Astarte, Baalat, Hathor, etc.) patronized learning and her Priestess collected a library of paypyrus scrolls. So it came to be that the Greeks called any papyrus, "byblos," which came to mean any HOLY BOOK.

Some of the miracles attributed to mythical heroes were appropriated from Goddess myths. For example, Joshua's arrest of the sun was formerly credited to priestess of ISIS, Hecate, and the Thessalian Great Mother, who were said to stop heavenly bodies in their courses, thus lengthening the day or night at will. Moses' flowering rod, river of blood, and tablets of the law were all Symbols of the ancient Goddess

Moses' miracle of drawing water from a rock was first performed by Mother Rhea after she gave birth of Zeus, and by Atalanta with the help of Artemis. Moses' miracle of drying up waters to travel dry-shod was earlier performed by Isis, or Hathor, on her way to BYBLOS !

Well the trouble is judges don't always get everything right and are prone to upholding the interests of white males. And not everyone has the resources to take their grievance to court; mental/ emotional or financial. Few barristers are real risk takers or motivated soley by principle.

And women are often denigrated as stupidly emotional, weak and just asking for it if seen to have been taken in by a cad. Or their pain is seen as as trivial. I think it would be very much in the public interest to try to put people off deliberately acting so badly in personal relationships.

In a parallel universe I would pursue cases as above and compare to cases where money was obtained by deception and expect parity in terms of method of deception. If you can deceive to obtain money in a variety of ways and it be wrong ie false promises etc, it must be wrong to commit the same varieties of deception to obtain sex/ intimacy. If not, why not?

Many people think that sexual offences are under-punished in comparision to other crimes.

Am too tired to think now but info here www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/fraud-act-2006

Fraud by false representation (Section 2)

The defendant: 

made a false representation 
dishonestly 
knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading 
with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss.

The offence is entirely focused on the conduct of the defendant.

The scope to prosecute seems wide there. There is precedent that consent is conditional, and perhaps the only thing that stops juries convicting is that they think they might also behave in deceptive ways WRT sex/ relationships and so they might be disinclined to convict having sympathy for the offender thinking there for the grace of god etc. Doesn't make it right though.

And I really wasn't talking about virginty in anything other than a true democracy - not in situations/ societies that are generally coercive and abusive to women, or that include rape. Clearly the odds are stacked against women in that situation and they are not free to choose or consent, nor to tell the truth. Not at all the same as wilful deception. Poor Tess :(

Nite all.

It's worth noting that if someone who was infertile kept that fact knowingly hidden from a spouse, it is grounds for an annulment in the Catholic church. I know that's not exactly the same as sexual consent, but I just bring it up because it is an issue that has had bearing on similar things wrt deception in relationships

It is a very good point and it demonstrates the problem if the criminal definitions are stretched to breaking point.

lass consent can be conditional in law. In my case I would not sleep with a man unless they were legally and morally free to pursue a monogamous relationship with me (and I with them)

The English courts have considered 3 cases recently involving conditional consent - the Assange sex without a condom ; another involving some one who promised not to ejaculate inside the woman but did so; and the McNally one.In these there was held to be no consent.

In McNally the court said

Demonstrating that the circumstances in which consent may be vitiated are not limitless, the Court explained:

"In reality, some deceptions (such as, for example, in relation to wealth) will obviously not be sufficient to vitiate consent."

I am not aware of a case in the UK being argued on the basis of what you suggest.

It's worth noting that if someone who was infertile kept that fact knowingly hidden from a spouse, it is grounds for an annulment in the Catholic church. I know that's not exactly the same as sexual consent, but I just bring it up because it is an issue that has had bearing on similar things wrt deception in relationships.

Obviously the virginity thing is frigging batshit. Comparing someone who is wedded to notions of 'purity' and feels the previous undisclosed sexual encounters of a partner are a violation against them to someone discovering at an intimate moment that a sexual partner has the genitals of the opposite sex and feeling violated because they are not of the corresponding sexuality is comparing a value judgement with a innate sexuality.

I take the point of the legal mind on the thread that the law does need careful consideration, but I think it's wise to not stretch definitions as wide as possible so that they include personal preferences and value judgements. Sexuality is not a personal preference. It is pretty fundamental.

lass consent can be conditional in law. In my case I would not sleep with a man unless they were legally and morally free to pursue a monogamous relationship with me (and I with them). My right to consent to imtimate sexual acts is based on that conditional and expressed consent (amongst other consents). I value that intimacy and control over my body and intimacy and would feel violated if deceived. I place value on that.

Just like in ye olden days when men placed value on women's virginity and fidelity for reasons of feelings/pride/ paternity of children.

Can my intimacy only have worth if men deem it so? Or am I allowed to pursue justice for myself?

"In reality, some deceptions (such as, for example, in relation to wealth) will obviously not be sufficient to vitiate consent."

But why is that obvious?

I do not think it should vitiate consent. I don't think consent can be bought so this applies equally here.

I also don't think lying about being married vitiate consent. These are getting in the realms of absurdity.

My apologies LauraMipsum I think we maybe agreeing on some things! I hastily read your post before I posted and think I read it a bit wrong.

I agree that the law as it stands benefits men and men's interests eg wealth and having the freedom to shag around undisdained.

There have been 7 publicised cases of 'sex by deception' in the last decade, all of them biological women who pretended to be men in order to have sex with heterosexual female partners. I think one or two identified themselves (loosely) as trans men. All but one pleaded guilty.

Rather interesting that only females have been prosecuted, isn't it?
I suspect we may live in a patriarchy. It's a bit like transmen only ever being mentioned when it furthers the transwomen agenda. Funny that. 'Almost' as if birth sex is the thing that everyone knows matters, but pretends that it does not.

My suggestion to clarify 'sex by deception' is to add:
Possession of an unexpected penis.

A bit like rape being 'penetration by penis', the rest being sexual assault.

snappity Anyone is already free to ask questions or put limits anywhere they like, but the onus is not on a person to interrogate from an endless list of possible scenarios. It you have reason to believe that it would make a difference (and you know for a fact that trans status is a legit reason for reasons of sexual orientation and truth telling at the least) then the onus is on the party to disclose. Just like with insurance or any other contract that talks about with holding pertinent information. The precedent in law is well established and you aren't going to get it rolled back now.

Yes exactly as AngryAttackKittens says, sexual orientation and the biological sex of the person you are being sexual with is a universally known and cared about thing.

Would be a waste of time to try arguing about this Snappity and makes you look ever more dodgy*. How many ways can you try to make out that it is OK to deceive people? It isn't and never will be.

SarahAr lots of material facts that would influence a decsion DO have to be disclosed. And more could be tested in court. Consent can also be conditional eg the agreement to proceed based on the promise to wear a condom.

The law says that if a person has consented if he/she "agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice" and that anything that denies or restricts freedom or choice may vitiate consent. Deception of identity is clearly fundamental - so fundamental that it is a given, hardly needing to be defined in law except for the existence of abusive deceivers pushing every boundary going.

I'm all for broadening the scope of informed consent and what may invalidate it.

Eg I think if you are knowingly infertile and you engage in a relationship that includes sex with someone who has made it plain that they want children, then I think you do have a duty to discuss it first. You don't have the right to decide what is important to another person or under what circumstances they should have sex, especially if your agenda is to get your end away. They may say "hey, sure we can look at the options later, carry on and fuck me", but they may also say, "whoa, actually I only want to sleep with people within a relationship that includes kids so let me think about this". Neither reaction is wrong.

If people want to have casual sex or sexual encounters outside a committed relationship or with people they don't know well, then that is fine too, but let's treat it like sport and have everyone play by the same rules and being open and honest.

And have open honesty carry forward to more realtionships. Lauramipsum Promising to marry someone and having sex etc whilst having no intention of marrying them probably be punishable under the law. Why not? It hurts people every bit as much as stealing their money by deception and can be a psychological wound. You would have to prove it though. And it would generally punish more men than women, so of course no one will want to consider it or consider it in the public interest to stop some men being such bastards.

And let's face it, many men who had been deceived by a transwoman would probably not want to go to court because of the the fear of humilation, or suggestions that he wanted it really etc and so I would think it is massively under-reported. In this rare instance it would be easier for women to report this type of sexual crime.

In some cultures the punishment for a girl/woman not being a virgin when she's supposed ti be is severe, brutal, murder is committed over this.

Snappity believes that girls/ women have to choose prison or punishment at the hands of their "loved ones". For having had sex before marriage. Or having been raped or abused as a child.

Way to go snappity!

Keep this stuff coming, you show more of how you view girls and women, and how aware you are off the variois issues we face, every time you post.

But in some cases birth gender does need to be disclosed

The word is SEX

Possibly a lone voice here but from a legal perspective I think I agree the law needs reviewing.

There have been 7 publicised cases of 'sex by deception' in the last decade, all of them biological women who pretended to be men in order to have sex with heterosexual female partners. I think one or two identified themselves (loosely) as trans men. All but one pleaded guilty.

Legally, it would be a lot harder for a trans woman with a penis to do this: if someone saw that they had male genitalia and said 'no I've changed my mind' and sex went ahead anyway then that is straightforward rape, no 'sex by deception' needed.

I don't see how, in law, there is a good way of deciding what is a dealbreaker sufficient to vitiate consent and what is not. The three wealthy male judges in McNally for reasons I couldn't possibly guess at said that

"In reality, some deceptions (such as, for example, in relation to wealth) will obviously not be sufficient to vitiate consent."

But why is that obvious?

So if I say to someone "you say on Tinder that you're earning a six figure salary and I'm only interested in sex with people who are earning that" I might be shallow, but if they turn out to be on benefits, is my consent not vitiated?

If someone holds himself out on Tinder as being single and he turns out to be married and cheating, should that vitiate consent? Because that takes us into disturbing adultery laws.

If not having transitioned is a dealbreaker I think that should be made clear prior to sex. NB - I am NOT talking about rape here but about the specific sex by deception issue whereby sex is entered into with apparent consent, but the consent is vitiated by later discovery of a feature about the person.

I used to work with someone who would get tearful and phone the police about her ex-fiance, because she would never have slept with him if he hadn't promised to marry her, and ultimately he'd never intended to do so. Should he be a) considered a cad of the highest order and disdained, or b) prosecuted under criminal law?

The present state of the law assumes that lesbian sex is so abhorrent that any woman would need to know if her partner weren't a man (one judge in sentencing remarks I now can't find regarded it as a mitigating feature that the defendant was gender questioning rather than seeking lesbian pleasure), but that adultery or lying about STIs are so run-of-the-mill that it's a caveat shaggor situation. It rather strikes me that when we apply 'common sense' we apply common prejudice and that the current status quo only benefits men.

I knew one he was a dick

->Upstart

Upstart because women are merely vessels to be used to get to the people you want to interfere with? To make the job more fun? I doubt we'll ever find out why really, but I'd bet my last dollar the basis is misogyny.

So he can blend in with groups like animal rights

I find it really odd that anyone would argue that failing to disclose whether or not you used to have different genitals or even that your genitals are going to come as a bit of a surprise before you leap into bed with someone is ok. I find it especially surprising given that there has been a fair amount of traction given recently to the idea that trans women have been actively encouraged to lie to prospective sexual partners and, should those partners object, to commit violent acts against them on the basis that refusing consent based on genitals is literal violence. It is not anti trans for anyone to decide that they don't want to have sex with someone for any reason at all, even when consent is withdrawn due to the transwoman's seven inch surprise.

No one has explained why an undercover police officer has to form a relationship with a woman and have sex with her.

I think I might become a lesbian; I'm done with men, and now that same-sex attraction isn't a requisite for being lesbian I rather fancy a bit of companionship and intelligent conversation

Maryzsnewaccount the option over being a political lesbian has been available to you since the late 1960s. Enjoy

I’ve never quite understood this fascination with virgins. There is quite the pressure to ensure the experience is spot on, and something they will look back on fondly. That they aren’t anxious and pressured in any way.

I can see why one might want to avoid people that have dozens of notches on their bedposts, but I think the reasons for doing so apply equally to both men and women.

I think Lass is spot on, most of these issues are avoided if you take the time to really get to know someone. True people can lie and deceive even then, but you are at less risk if you are willing to vet your prospects a bit more.

The point Snappity was making is that all these things don't have to be disclosed. Also an undercover policeman does not have to disclose his history even if he is actively deceiving you.

But in some cases birth gender does need to be disclosed - and this applies before any sexual activity - e.g. if a man wishes to kiss a trans women in a bar, the transwomen might need to have a conversation with him about her history.

Whether all trans people have to disclose their birth gender is not clear in law at the moment. All the court cases of which I am aware, and there have been a lot, have concerned transmen. So from a GC point of view, people born female have been disproportionately impacted.

It is great that the Labour party are proposing to remove the requirement on trans people to disclose their history before sexual activity - I hope that other parties adopt this policy.

duck why bother identifying as male? Just cut to the chase and identify as a virgin. No one can reasonably challenge you (that would be literal violence). After all, biology, and thus the presence or absence of a hymen has no bearing on your status.

Biological sex matters to me because I'm heterosexual and my sexual preference is to have sex with a natal adult male who has a fully functioning penis.

Does that make me transphobic? Probably. Sigh.